#electricity billing

Bombay High Court clarifies that a loose connection in an electricity meter does not qualify as a 'defective meter' under MERC Regulations, upholding MSEDCL's recovery of ₹16.83 lakh for the disputed period. The ruling reinforces that consumers cannot evade billing liability by citing technical defects unless the meter itself is proven defective.

Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that consistent Maximum Demand readings from electronic meters constitute conclusive evidence for excess load billing, even if consumption patterns suggest otherwise. Industrial consumers cannot challenge tariff liabilities based on technical meter data validated under the Electricity Act.

Punjab & Haryana HC clarifies that under Regulation 4.8.2 of the 2016 Haryana Electricity Regulations, transmission losses for independent feeders must be calculated from the sub-station yard meter, not consumer-end meters. The ruling mandates consumer notification for joint readings unless remote metering is proven effective, ensuring regulatory compliance and preventing arbitrary billing.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that electricity boards cannot issue ad hoc bills for defective meters without first referring the dispute to an Electrical Inspector under Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. This decision reinforces statutory consumer protections and mandates compliance with procedural safeguards before billing disputes can be resolved.

Punjab and Haryana High Court clarifies that review applications cannot reargue merits or introduce new contentions; only patent errors apparent on the face of the record are grounds for review.