Recovery of electricity dues under supplementary bill attains finality if consumer fails to exhaust statutory appellate remedies.

The plaintiff, Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. (PGVCL), filed a recovery suit against Laxmi Ice Factory.

During a surprise inspection on November 2, 1993, PGVCL discovered tampering with the electricity meter and seals

A laboratory report confirmed the seals were "tampered and duplicate"

Consequently, a supplementary bill of ₹5,08,227.29 was raised on September 19, 2005, based on the prescribed "ABCD formula" for electricity theft

PGVCL sought a total of ₹7,11,930.62, which included the principal theft bill, regular outstanding bills, and 18% delayed payment charges

The trial court partly decreed the suit, awarding the principal amount of ₹5,08,227.29 with 6% interest, leading both parties to appeal

1. Whether the defendant committed electricity theft through meter tampering

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the supplementary bill amount and delayed payment charges

3. Whether a consumer can challenge the merits of a supplementary bill in a recovery suit without having exhausted the statutory alternative remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority

Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, specifically the "ABCD formula" for assessing malpractice and theft

Principle of Exhaustion of Statutory Remedies as established by the Division Bench in Vrajlal Devjibhai v. GEB and the Supreme Court in Punjab State Electricity Board v. Ashwani Kumar [(1997) 5 SCC 120], which holds that civil courts should not entertain challenges to supplementary bills if the consumer failed to utilize the specialized internal appellate machinery provided by electricity regulations

Hyderabad Vanaspathi Ltd v. A.P. State Electricity Board [(1998) 4 SCC 470] regarding the Board's power to levy additional charges for malpractice

The Court noted that the laboratory report (Exhibit-21) provided uncontested evidence that the meter seals were tampered with and duplicated

Applying the precedent from Bhikhabhia Arjanbhai Varu, the Court observed that since the defendant had not challenged the supplementary bill before the statutory Appellate Authority, the assessment had attained finality; thus, the defendant could not re-agitate the merits of the bill as a defense in a recovery suit

Regarding the Cross-Objection, the Court analyzed PGVCL's claim for ₹7,11,930.62 and found that the trial court correctly "dissected" the amount, identifying that the additional charges beyond the principal theft bill (₹5,08,227.29) were "camouflaged" or improperly aggregated into the principal

The Court upheld the trial court's judgment directing the defendant to pay the principal supplementary bill amount of ₹5,08,227.29 with 6% interest

It held that the electricity theft was proved by the laboratory report and that the calculation of the principal amount under the ABCD formula was legally sound, while refusing to increase the awarded amount or interest rate