A consumer who fails to appeal a supplementary electricity bill cannot challenge it in a recovery suit.

On 17 December 2003, Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. (“PGVCL”) conducted a surprise inspection at the appellant’s Mira Ice Factory and allegedly detected malpractice involving the electricity meter, seals and wiring.

The meter was sealed and sent for laboratory examination; the laboratory report recorded that the meter seal was tampered with and duplicated.

Applying the ABCD formula under the applicable Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, PGVCL raised a supplementary bill of Rs.8,35,364.09 on 19 April 2005 and subsequently disconnected the electricity supply for non-payment.

PGVCL instituted Special Civil Suit No.89 of 2005 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Porbandar, seeking recovery of Rs.13,16,158.75, comprising the principal supplementary bill, delayed-payment charges and other amounts, with interest at 18% per annum.

The appellant denied the alleged malpractice and challenged the maintainability and correctness of the claim.

The trial court partly decreed the suit and directed payment of Rs.8,35,364.09 with 6% delayed-payment charges from the date of filing of the suit until realisation.

The appellant preferred the present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

1. Whether the appellant could challenge the supplementary electricity bill and the alleged meter malpractice as a defence in the recovery suit when the appellant had not availed the appellate remedy provided under the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy?

2. Whether PGVCL had established the alleged tampering and duplication of the meter seal and was entitled to recover the supplementary bill assessed under the ABCD formula?

3. Whether the trial court’s decree limited to Rs.8,35,364.09 with 6% delayed-payment charges was liable to be set aside in the appellant’s first appeal?

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Under the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, a consumer found to have indulged in malpractice or dishonest abstraction of electricity is liable to additional charges assessed according to the prescribed ABCD formula, and an aggrieved consumer must challenge the supplementary bill before the designated Appellate Authority.

Relying on Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. v. Bhikhabhai Arjanbhai Varu, Second Appeal No.11 of 2012, and the authorities cited therein—Vrajlal Devjibhai v. GEB, First Appeal No.2506 of 2003; Punjab State Electricity Board v. Ashwani Kumar, (1997) 5 SCC 120; and Hyderabad Vanaspathi Ltd. v. A.P. State Electricity Board, (1998) 4 SCC 470—the Court applied the rule that, where the Conditions of Supply provide a specific appellate mechanism for disputing a supplementary bill, a consumer who fails to invoke that remedy cannot subsequently raise the same challenge by way of defence in a recovery suit.

The cited precedents further recognise the validity of the electricity board’s prescribed machinery for assessment and recovery of charges arising from malpractice.

The Court found that PGVCL’s officers had produced the consumer’s electricity-connection documents, the inspection material and the laboratory report.

The laboratory report specifically recorded that the meter seal was tampered with and duplicated, and the appellant had not seriously contested this evidence.

The supplementary bill was accordingly prepared under the prescribed ABCD formula.

Applying the rule that an unchallenged supplementary bill attains finality where the consumer fails to use the contractual appellate remedy, the Court held that the appellant could not reopen the assessment or dispute the underlying malpractice in the recovery proceedings.

Although PGVCL argued that the entire claim ought to have been decreed, the present appeal was by the appellant against the trial court’s partly favourable decree, and the High Court found no ground to interfere with that decree.

The Court discontinued any interim relief granted earlier and directed the Registry to return the Record and Proceedings to the concerned court, if any.