1. The petitioner, a consumer engaged in ice manufacturing under Consumer No. 1155304022245 with LT-IV A demand-based tariff at Electrical Section, Cheppad, challenges the orders of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (hereinafter ‘CGRF’) dated 03.03.2022 and the State Electricity Ombudsman dated 20.06.2022, and the consequential demand cum disconnection notice dated 25.06.2022, issued by the 3rd respondent, Assistant Engineer, Cheppad.

2. The petitioner asserts that the energy meter had been functioning properly and was regularly inspected and billed without arrears. On 14.09.2021, APTS, Alappuzha, conducted an inspection and alleged that the R-phase was recording 29.70% below the actual consumption. Based on this, a short assessment bill of Rs.96,147/- was issued pursuant to the demand notice dated 01.11.2021 under Section 45 of the Electricity Act, read with Regulation 134 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code (hereinafter ‘the Supply Code’).

3. The petitioner approached the CGRF challenging the said demand, and the Forum ordered that the short assessment be reassessed by revising the bills of 07.2021 and 08.2021 based on the average consumption computed from the three billing cycles after the replacement of the phase wire, i.e., from 10.2021. This was further challenged before the Ombudsman, and by order dated 20.06.2022, the Ombudsman affirmed the decision of the CGRF by following the very same reasoning. Consequent to the order of the ombudsman, the 3rd respondent issued a Demand cum disconnection notice dated 25.06.2022 with a revised bill for payment of Rs. 99,293/-.

4. The petitioner contends that Ext.P1 mahazar merely records sludge formation at the R-phase terminal and voltage of 30.4 V in R-phase against 234 V and 230 V in the other phases, and that the Sub Engineer had no authority to unilaterally determine 29.70% under-recording since Regulation 18(2) of the Central Electricity Authority (Installation and Operation of Meters) Regulations, 2016 permits meter accuracy testing only through NABL-accredited laboratories or mobile testing units. It is urged that Ext.P1 contains no reference to the downloading of data by APTS, yet the assessment is admittedly based on such extraneous material. Exts.P2 to P5 show the meter status as “working” in July, August, and September 2021; hence, any defect could only have arisen between 01.09.2021 and 14.09.2021, and the defect was rectified on the very day of inspection. The petitioner submits that the anomaly noted in Ext.P1 is a “meter defect” within the meaning of Regulation 2(57) of the Supply Code, and therefore, assessment could only be undertaken under Regulation 125, which mandates billing based on the average of the three preceding billing cycles and limits assessment to two cycles.

5. The petitioner further contends that Ext.P10 bill dated 01.11.2021, issued after Ext.P9 objection to the demand notice, violates the mandatory procedure prescribed under Ext.P11 KSEB Circular dated 25.02.2016 for handling meter-defect cases, and that the failure to record tamper-data in the mahazar demonstrates procedural irregularity. It is argued that Ext.P13 order of the CGRF, directing that the short assessment be revised by reassessing the bills for July and August 2021 based on the average consumption for the three billing cycles after rectification, i.e., from 10/2021, adopts a methodology not contemplated under Regulation 125 or Rule 7(3) of the Electricity Rules, 2005, and is therefore unsustainable. The Ombudsman, by Ext.P15 order dated 20.06.2022, is stated to have repeated the same error by mechanically affirming the Forum’s reasoning without considering the prior billing- cycle data in Exts. P17 to P22.

6. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 3, it is stated that during the APTS inspection on 14.09.2021, the petitioner’s premises were found equipped with a CT-operated energy meter (PGR Powertek, MF 20), and examination of the voltage connections revealed weathering and patina formation at the R-phase voltage tapping point. The voltage recorded in the meter was only 30.4 V in the R-phase, while the Y and B phases recorded 234 V and 230 V, respectively; however, the actual R- phase voltage measured with a multimeter was 232V. To quantify the under-recording, a Zera MT-310 standard meter (Sl. No. 50043258), duly calibrated by the Electrical Inspectorate, was used, and it showed a 29.70% negative error. The respondents contend that such an abnormality could not have been detected during routine monthly meter reading and required specialised technical analysis. Since the shortfall for the period from 03.07.2021 to 14.09.2021 was identified only upon inspection, Regulation 134 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014, authorises the licensee to assess and recover the undercharged amount. They further submit that testing in an NABL-accredited laboratory was not required because the meter itself was functioning properly and had not been replaced; therefore, Regulation 125 of the Supply Code does not apply as the anomaly arose from an external connection defect rather than a “meter fault”.

7. The respondents rely on Southern India Marine Products Co. v. Kerala State Electricity Board and Others (MANU/KE/0404/1995), and Indus Towers Limited v. Kerala State Electricity Board and Another, (W.P. (C) No. 29244 of 2015) (Kerala High Court), to contend that where the meter is intact, sealed, and in proper working condition, external issues such as wrong connections, phase disconnection, or wiring defects do not render it “faulty” and do not attract Regulation 125. They also note that after the petitioner sought rectification, the R-phase tapping point was cleaned and re-fixed, following which the meter began recording accurately, confirming that the anomaly was external. The respondents assert that the consumer cannot retain the benefit of reduced billing arising from such a connection defect and that the licensee is statutorily entitled to recover the actual charges when under-recording is established. Recovery of legitimately undercharged amounts is stated to be consistent with Section 45 of the Electricity Act, the Supply Code framework, and the public interest, and therefore, the assessment, as well as the orders of the CGRF and the Ombudsman, are fully legal, valid, and binding.

8. Heard Sri. K.P. Rajeevan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. Riji Rajendran, learned Standing Counsel for the Board.

9. The CGRF, in its order dated 03.03.2022, found on verification of the downloaded meter data produced by the APTS Wing that the R- phase voltage had been abnormally low from 03.07.2021 onwards. At the time of the APTS inspection, the R-phase voltage recorded was 30.4V. The downloaded data showed wide fluctuations in R-phase voltage between 2.4V and 218V, with the voltage remaining below 100V for most of the relevant period. The Forum concluded that applying the 29.7% error detected by the Zera reference meter for the entire period was inappropriate. It also noted that the anomaly was rectified on 14.09.2021 by replacing the phase wires, after which the metering system functioned properly. The Forum found the short assessment issued for the entire month of September 2021 unsustainable. Examining the consumption pattern between April 2021 and February 2022, it was found that higher consumption was recorded post-rectification, clearly indicating that the meter had under-recorded due to deteriorated phase wiring. The Forum therefore directed that the short assessment be recomputed by applying the average of the three billing cycles after replacement, i.e., from October 2021, and revising the bills for July and August 2021 accordingly. The Ombudsman concluded that the licensee was entitled to recover undercharged amounts under Regulation 134 and upheld the reassessment ordered by the CGRF.

10. In view of the above dispute, this Court on 18.11.2025 directed the Board to produce the petitioner’s bills for the three months preceding 14.09.2021, the date of inspection, and for the three months thereafter. In compliance, the Standing Counsel produced Ext. R1(a) series of bills. A comparison of the bills for the three months preceding the inspection with those issued after the inspection and rectification reveals a clear increase in consumption. This establishes that the meter had been under-recording prior to the inspection and rectification, and therefore, the finding of the CGRF stands duly justified. There is no case for the petitioner that the meter was faulty during this period.

11. In this case, the inspection revealed that patina (oxidation) had developed at the connecting point of the phase wire-tapping voltage from the R-phase to the meter, which was due to weathering and atmospheric conditions. The anomaly was not with the energy meter itself but with the external wiring connection that supplied voltage to the meter, and it was rectified by replacing the affected phase wire, and after cleaning and re-fixing the terminal, the meter began recording accurately. Hence, this is not a case of a defective meter or faulty meter within the meaning of Regulation 125 of the Supply Code. It is also to be noted that Regulation 2(57) defines meter, and the connecting wire that taps voltage from the R phase to the meter does not form part of the meter as per the definition. Therefore, it is important to note that neither the meter nor the CTs were defective.

12. The grievance forums relied upon contemporaneous technical evidence, including downloaded meter data and an on-site accuracy test conducted with a calibrated Zera reference meter, which confirmed under-recording. Their findings that the case does not fall under Regulation 125 and that the reassessment should proceed under Section 45 of the Electricity Act, 2003, read with Regulations 134, 136, and 152 of the Supply Code cannot be said to be wrong or illegal.

13. The method of reassessment adopted is rational, technically supported, and consistent with the statutory framework governing recovery of undercharged amounts. The petitioner’s grievances regarding non-detection by meter readers or the absence of NABL testing do not absolve liability to pay for energy actually consumed when under- recording is established on reliable technical evidence. For all the above reasons, this Court finds no reason for interference in Exts.P13 and P15 orders of CGRF and Ombudsman respectively, and Ext.P16 demand.

                  The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.