A grievance forum must address whether under-recording arose from wiring rather than a meter defect.

The respondent operated a manufacturing unit with a 650 KVA electricity connection. UPCL alleged that the meter under-recorded consumption because of carbon deposits at the joint of the CT wire and the R-phase, and, relying on an MRI report indicating that one phase had not been recorded since July 2015, assessed additional charges of ₹59,57,920 for July 2015 to August 2017.

The respondent challenged the demand before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Haridwar (CGRF). The CGRF treated the matter as a defective-meter case, set aside the assessment, and directed a fresh assessment under para 3.1.3(6) of the Uttarakhand Electricity Supply Code Regulations, 2007. UPCL challenged that order by writ petition, contending that the CGRF had not addressed its position that the meter itself was not defective.

Whether the CGRF’s order could stand when it did not consider UPCL’s specific contention that the meter was not defective and that under-recording resulted from carbon deposits at the CT-wire/R-phase joint.

Whether the under-recording should be treated as a defect in the meter, including its associated CT, for purposes of the applicable Supply Code provisions.

Para 3.1.3(6) of the Uttarakhand Electricity Supply Code Regulations, 2007 provides for assessment in cases involving a defective meter, as relied upon by the CGRF.

Clause 2(ff) defines “meter” to include associated equipment such as CTs and PTs necessary for recording consumption.

The Court also considered Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Jalgaon v. Vega Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 6567, which discussed the distinction between a defect in the meter and a fault in wiring; it was cited for the proposition that a wiring fault does not, without more, constitute a defect in the meter.

UPCL’s reply to the CGRF expressly stated that the meter was functioning properly and attributed the under-recording to carbon deposits at the CT-wire/R-phase joint. Although the CGRF referred to that reply, it did not address the contention and instead proceeded on the basis that the case involved a defective meter.

Because the contention could affect whether para 3.1.3(6) applied—and because the parties disputed whether the CT formed part of the meter and whether the alleged condition amounted to a meter defect—the CGRF’s order could not stand without reasoned consideration of the issue. The Court therefore set aside the order and left the merits for the CGRF to determine afresh.

It directed that the respondent’s industrial power supply be restored if, within one week, the respondent deposited current power charges, excluding surcharge, after adjustment of amounts already deposited under the Court’s order; payment of surcharge was to abide by the CGRF’s decision. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.