IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

W.P.No.11669 of 2023
M/s. Stanson Rubber Products II,
Rep. by P.Periyannan, H.R.Manager,
G-35, SIDCO Industrial Estate,
Kakkalur, Tiruvallur-602 003 ….…Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Ombudsman,
4th floor, SIDCO Corporate Office Building,
Thiru-vi-ka Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai-600 032

2. The Superintending Engineer

(Chairman Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum)
Kanchipuram,
Kanchipuram Electricity Distribution Circle,
TANGEDCO,
Kanchipuram

3. The Executive Engineer/O&M/Tiruvallur,

Kanchipuram Electricity Distribution Circle,
TANGEDCO,
No.6, Lal, Bhahadur Sastri Street,
Periyakuppam, Tiruvallur-602 001

4. The Assistant Executive Engineer/O&M/North/Tiruvallur,

Kanchipuram Electricity Distribution Circle,
TANGEDCO, Near, Anchaneyar kovil, 110kv Kakkalure Sub station
Kakkalure -602 003.

5. The Junior Engineer/O&M/West/Tiruvallur,

Kanchipuram Electricity Distribution Circle
TANGEDCO,Near Anchaneyar Kovil, 110Kv Kakkalure Sub station
Kakalur- 602003
….…Respondents

Page No.1
No. of corrns. "Nil"
 -:: 2 ::-

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY 2nd RESPONDENT

I, S.Sunil Kumkar, S/o.P.Sukumaran , aged about 59 years, working as the
Superintending Engineer having office at Kanchipuram Electricity Distribution Circle,
TANGEDCO, Kanchipuram, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as
follows:

1. I am the 2nd respondent herein as such I am well acquainted with the facts of
the case from the records and I am filing the counter affidavit on behalf of
respondents 3 to 5.

2. I humbly submit that the writ petitioner has filed the present writ petition
seeking for writ of certiorari calling for the records of 1 st respondent in
A.P.No.107/2022 dated 21.03.2023 and quash the same.

3. I humbly submit that the writ petitioner had obtained 3 phase LT CT industrial
service connection in SC No.363-002-940. I humbly submit that during
02/2020, the writ petitioner had observed that the LT CT Meter box is getting
heated and raised a complaint to the 5th respondent. Based on the same, the
meter box was inspected on 10.02.2020. On the same day, the MRT wing, an
authority specialized in checking of meter arrangements were informed and
an inspection was conducted by the MRT wing in the presence of the
consumer representative Mr.K.Ravikumar.

4. I humbly submit that on inspection, it was ascertained that out of 3 phases

leading to the electric meter, one of the phase namely, ‘Y’ phase was not
recorded and on observation, it was found that the non-recording was due to
burning of the CT Coil provided in Y phase and the secondary wire connected
to the meter. Therefore the consumer provided 3 nos. of CT Coil 200/5Amps.
The same was handed over to the MRT wing, tested and thereafter fixed in
the service connection of the writ petitioner in the presence of consumer

Page No.2
No. of corrns. "Nil"
 -:: 3::-

representative Mr.K.Ravikumar on 17.02.2020. It was also informed to the

representative that necessary revision of bills will be done based on the MRT
downloaded data report i.e., CMRI data.

5. I humbly submit that based on the MRT downloaded data i.e., CMRI report, it
was found that Y phase current was not recorded in the meter from
30.11.2017 to 17.02.2020. Therefore, the writ petitioner was demanded a sum
of Rs.16,21,363/- vide demand letter dated 26.05.2020 along with a detailed
working sheet. I humbly submit that the CMRI data was furnished to the writ
petitioner on 22.07.2020 and on 21.09.2020. Since the writ petitioner failed to
pay the shortfall amount, the electricity service connection was disconnected
on 07.11.2020 after due intimation to the petitioner. Since the writ petitioner
requested for reconnection stating a petition has been filed before the
Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, the said service connection was
restored on the same date.

6. I humbly submit that the an order in Petition No.38/2020 filed by the writ
petitioner dated 05.07.2022 was passed by the Consumer Grievance
Redressal Forum upholding the demand raised by the respondents.
Aggrieved against the same, the writ petitioner preferred an appeal before the
Electricity Ombudsman in A.P.No.107 of 2022.

7. I humbly submit that detailed proceedings were conducted before the

Electricity Ombudsman where the respondents have made detailed
submissions in the following paragraphs:-
“6.2 The Respondent has submitted that on MRT inspection, it is ascertained
that, out of 3 outgoing phases to the consumer loads, “Y” Phase outgoing to
the consumer loads recorded 118.5 Amps on primary side, and there is no
current recording in the secondary side of the meter. From the above it is
clear that, the consumer availed three phase supply and consumed energy
without recording one phase in meter. In the presence of consumer
Page No.3
No. of corrns. "Nil"
 -:: 4::-

representative, the seals were opened and observed. On observation it's

found that, the CT coil provided in the “y” phase was burnt & the secondary
wire connected to the meter found burnt. This is the cause for the non
recording of 'Y' Phase in the meter. The consumer asked to provide CT Coil
200/5Amps and the consumer handed over 3Nos CT coil with the same ratio
of 200/5Amps. The same was handed over to the MRT for testing and fixed in
the service in the presence of consumer representative Thiru.K.Ravikumar on
17.02.2020. On 17.02.2020 itself the consumer representative was
informed about the billing revision will be recommended based on the MRT
downloading data report for the Y-Phase CT coil burnout and Y phase current
missing.
6.3 The Respondent has submitted that on detailed MRT downloaded
report analyzing, the Y Phase Current element is not recorded in the meter
from 30.11.2017 @ 12.50 Hr to 17.02.2020 @ 17.18 hrs, The recorded
consumption for the above said period for remaining 2-Phase is 4,86,348
units against the 3- Phase consumption 7,29,522 units.
6.7 The Respondent has submitted that the civil liability of Rs.16,21,363/-
is arised due to not recording of Y-Phase Current element and not due to
Meter defective. In the LTCT Metering arrangement by the distribution
licensee. The supply of 3 Phase 440V is extended to the consumer Loads by
erection 1 no LTCT Metering box. In the metering box the petitioner availed
LT 3 Phase 440V Supply directly. The LTCT coil is provided in the metering
box for measuring of Secondary current. The 1 No Y-Phase CT coil
secondary Loads (Current element) is not recording in the meter. The same
was noticed by Licensee on 10.02.2020 through the consumer representative.
6.8 The Respondent has submitted that the lapse on the Officer /staff for
not recording the metering data's during regular assessment is actionable by
the employer cum licensee. The Petitioner has to pay energy consumption
charges for consumed energy during the above said period. CMRI

Page No.4
No. of corrns. "Nil"
 -:: 5 ::-

downloaded data were handed over to the petitioner on 22.07.2020 and again
on 21.09.2020.
6.11 The Respondent has submitted that from the above judgment that,
even though the liability to pay energy charges is created on the day the
electricity is consumed, the charge would became first due only after a bill or
the demand notice is served. Therefore, The limitation in the present case
also shall run from the date of demand notice" It is submitted that the section
56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 has been considered and held that the bar of
limitation cannot be raised by the consumer. Further any demand involving
short levy, incorrect billing, wrong application of the multiplying factor, audit
abjection etc, made after two years is a supplementary bill towards the energy
unbilled. There is no bar in the said act to raise a supplementary bill. In that
case, The bar /limitation under section 56(2) of said act will be attracted on
expiry of the time mentioned in such demand notice, Since on date the
amount first became due unless the amount so demanded and in such
supplementary bill is shown continuously as recoverable as arrears of
charges for electricity supplied by the license. Further, such demand seeking
payment for a back period shall be properly /appropriately worded so as to
indicate that it is a supplement bill raised for the first time. The Respondent
has prayed to dismiss the appeal filed by the petitioner."

8. I humbly submit that after detailed enquiry into the issue, the 1 st respondent
observed that the consumer if considers the meter to be defective, should
have applied for challenge test with the respondent in accordance with
Regulation 7(9) of the Electricity Supply Code and it is also confirmed by the
respondent that the meter was in good condition. (Para 8.6 of Ombudsman
Order). I humbly submit that it was also observed that since the meter energy
recording facility was restricted to a particular duration due to limited memory
in the meter, the available data provided to the writ petitioner is valid. (Para
9.4 of Ombudsman Order)

Page No.5
No. of corrns. "Nil"
 -:: 6::-

9. I humbly submit that it was also observed by the Electricity Ombudsman that
the consumer ledger showed variation in the consumption pattern for the
periods of December 2017 to January 2020 and also granted opportunity to
the writ petitioner to request for challenge test if they are suspicious that the
meter is defective (Para 10.9 and 10.10 of Ombudsman Order), but the writ
petitioner did not make any request for the same. It was also observed that
the claim of the respondent is not barred by limitation under Section 56(2) of
Electricity Act, since the limitation of 2 years would start from the date of
raising the demand i.e; first due would arise only after a claim is made and
made known to the writ petitioner. Therefore the limitation of 2 years would
run from 26.05.2020 and there was continuous claim of shortfall amount and
therefore not barred by limitation. (Para 11.7, 11.8 and 11.9 of Ombudsman
Order)
Therefore, the demand was raised only taking half of the 2/3 rd
consumption recorded in the electric meter and that the demand raised in
based upon the MRT downloaded CMRI data, which is a scientific data
recovered from the electricity meter and the said CMRI data was also
furnished to the writ petitioner affording reasonable opportunity. Hence the
order passed by the 1st respondent dated 21.03.2023 upholding the demand
of the respondents is not liable to be set aside.

10. I humbly submit that based on the Ombudsman Order, a demand dated
29.03.2023 was raised on the writ petitioner for a sum of Rs.12,16,023/-,
since already a sum of Rs.4,05,340/- was paid by the writ petitioner while
filing the Appeal petition before Ombudsman.

11. I humbly submit that the present writ petition is filed against the Ombudsman
Order dated 21.03.2023 and the demand letter dated 29.03.2023 was not
challenged by the writ petitioner in the present writ petition. It is also further
submitted that the Electricity Ombudsman had given an opportunity to the writ
petitioner to request for a challenge test in the petitioner considers the meter
Page No.6
No. of corrns. "Nil"
 -:: 7::-

to be defective but the same was not availed by the writ petitioner. No request
was made by the writ petitioner to conduct a challenge test pursuant to Order
dated 21.03.2023.

12. I humbly submit that an interim stay was granted by the Hon’ble Court in the
present writ petition with a condition to deposit Rs.8,00,000/- before
28.04.2023 and Rs.4,00,000/- before 30.05.2023. After receiving the same,
the writ petitioner’s service connection was not disconnected.

For the reasons state above, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to dismiss the writ petition as devoid of merits and pass such other order as
this Hon’ble Court deems fit and thus render justice.

Solemnly affirmed at Chennai on this Before me,

the day of August, 2023 and signed his
name in my presence
Advocate :: Chennai
 ICT
HIGH COURT :: MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
W.P.No.11669 of 2023

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND

RESPONDENT

MR. L. JAIVENKATESH, E.No.458/2001

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5
CELL No.9884592529