Consistent Recording of Excess Maximum Demand Across Multiple Meters Validates Billing for Unauthorized Connected Load.

The Respondent, an industrial consumer with a sanctioned load of 14.92 kW (20 HP) for a flour mill, was inspected by the Petitioner on 21.10.2008, where the connected load was found to be approximately 32.8 kW (44 HP)

Based on this inspection and consistent Maximum Demand (MD) readings exceeding the sanctioned limit, the Petitioner raised bills for excess load

The Respondent challenged the billing before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, which quashed the bills on the grounds of meter defects and a lack of correlation between consumption units and connected load

The Petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the Forum's order dated 08.11.2011

1. Whether the Forum erred in discarding the inspection report and consistent MD data based on isolated meter defects

2. Whether the billing for excess load is determined by the actual connected load/maximum demand or by the total units of energy consumed under the applicable tariff

The Court applied the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the applicable Electricity Tariff regulations

The core principle established is that when actual load exceeds sanctioned load, the consumer is liable for excess demand charges and enhanced fixed charges to compensate for the stress placed on the distribution infrastructure

the principle of evidence that a consistent pattern of readings across multiple replacement meters negates the plea of isolated mechanical error

The Court reasoned that the inspection report, signed by the Respondent’s representative, held significant evidentiary value

It found that the MD data consistently ranged between 19.06 kW and 35.4 kW across several years and through multiple meter replacements (2010, 2011), which ruled out the possibility of the readings being a result of a singular meter defect

The Court held that the Forum misdirected itself by focusing on "consumption units" (energy) rather than "Maximum Demand" (load capacity), as the tariff specifically prescribes penalties for exceeding the sanctioned capacity regardless of actual units consumed

Furthermore, the Respondent failed to reduce the load or apply for an enhancement, thereby remaining liable for unauthorized usage

The Court set aside the Forum’s order dated 08.11.2011 and upheld the Petitioner’s billing for excess load

The Respondent was directed to pay the outstanding dues, failing which the Petitioner is authorized to take recovery and consequential actions

The writ petition was allowed