K. RAMACHANDRIAH, J. ( 1 ) THE decision of this second appeal filed by the Karnataka electricity board (k. e. b.)represented by its assistant engineer at athanicentres round the interpretation of regulation-28of the Karnataka electricity supply regulations as in force in 1977. the relevant portion ofregulation-28 (a) reads thus:"28. Faulty meters: (a) in the event of the meter being out of orderfor any reason during any month, the consumption forthat month will be determined on the basis of the averageconsumption over the preceding threemonths' period and the bill for the monthwill be prepared accordingly and becomepayable by the consumer. The faulty meterwill be replaced by another one in goodworking order immediately or the samewill be repaired and reinstalled as expeditiously as possible. " ( 2 ) THE relevant facts are as undcr:-respondent-plaintiff is a company called M/s. Manoranjan private limited doing businessin cinema at athani. Reading of consumption ofelectric energy as recorded in the meter installedat the premises of the plaintiff bearing installationno. R. r. 1085 could not be recorded for themonth of april, 1977 as it was burnt. Therefore,the k. e. b. acting under regulation-28 prepareda bill for Rs. 510. 10 ps. By taking the average ofthe highest consumption of electric energy by theplaintiff during the months of April 1976, september,1976 and january, 1977 at 1003,679 and 751 units respectivelyby striking average consumption for the said 3 months at 811 units andcalled upon the plaintiff to remit that amountwithin the prescribed time failing which theelectric connection would be disconnected to thecinema building. Plaintiff was of the view thatthe k. e. b. ought to have taken the average of theconsumption of electric energy for the preceding3 months from January to march, 1977 of thesame year as per regulation-28 and not of thehighest consumption in 3 months in the previousone year. Apprehending that the k. e. b. may disconnectelectric supply to the cinema building ifthey did not pay Rs. 510. 10 ps. Claimed in theirbill issued for the month of april, 1977, plaintifffiled a suit against the k. e. b. in o. s. 98/1977 fora decree of perpetual injunction restraining thek. e. b. from cutting of electric supply to their installationno. 1085 for not paying the amountclaimed in the bill for the month of april, 1977prepared on the basis of the highest consumptionrecorded during the 3 months mentioned above. e. b. from cutting of electric supply to their installationno. 1085 for not paying the amountclaimed in the bill for the month of april, 1977prepared on the basis of the highest consumptionrecorded during the 3 months mentioned above. k. e. b. resisted the suit by contending that thebill for the month of april, 1977 sent by it was inaccordance with regulation-28 (a ). The trialcourt accepted the defence of the k. e. b. anddismissed the suit. Therefore, plaintiff filed r. a. no. 65/1978 in the court of the civil judge, betgaum. by judgment dated 16-1-1980, the learnedii additional civil judge, belgaum took a contraryview and held that the k. e. b. ought to haveprepared the bill for the month of April 1977 bytaking the average consumption of electric energyfor the 3 months from January to march, 1977as per regulation-28 (a) and decreed the suit byallowing the appeal of the plaintiff. Hence, thissecond appeal by the k. e. b. it is admitted forconsidering the following substantial question oflaw:-"whethcr the lower appellate courtcorrectly interpreted regulation-28-a (i) of thekarnataka electricity supply regulations? ( 3 ) A reading of the impugned judgment of the lower appellate court would give an impression that it has proceeded to decide the appeal on thebasis of regulation-28 (a) (i) of the regulationsas amended or subsequently promulgated. Itreads as unden :-"28. Faulty meters: (a) (i) in the event of the energy meter ofan installation being out of order for anyreason (other than tampering by a humanagency) the installation may be back-billedfor a maximum period of six months or forsuch period as may be in the circumstances ofthe case deemed appropriate, on the basis ofthe average of the highest consumptionrecorded during any three months of the year inwhich the fall in consumption is noticed and incases where that is not possible, then on thebasis of the average of the highest consumptionrecorded during any three months of thepreceding year. The faulty meter will bereplaced by another one in good workingorder immediately or the same will berepaired and reinstalled as expeditiously aspossible. " (emphasis supplied) ( 4 ) 'year' as defined in the regulation that was prevailing in 1977 as well as in the subsequentregulation means the calendar year. What is a'calendar year' is not clarified either in the oldregulation or in the subsequent regulation. " (emphasis supplied) ( 4 ) 'year' as defined in the regulation that was prevailing in 1977 as well as in the subsequentregulation means the calendar year. What is a'calendar year' is not clarified either in the oldregulation or in the subsequent regulation. But,in the Karnataka electricity board electricitysupply regulations, 1988, 'calendar year' isdefined thus:-" 'calendar year* shall mean the periodbetween the first day of January of an yearand the thirty-first of december, of the sameyear. "regulation-29. 02. In 1988 regulations reads thus:-"29. 02. If the meter is found not recording (for any reason other than tampering) theconsumer will be billed for a period of notmore than six billing months preceding thedate of inspection/testing on the basis of theaverage energy consumption of the immediatelypreceding 3 (three) billing months whenthe meter was recording properly plusdemand/fixed charges. notwithstanding, where it is establishedthat a meter is out of order only for a few daysin a billing month, the consumption for suchperiod shall be computed on pro-rata basis ofthe consumption recorded for the remainingnumber of days in the billing month. also, where the recorded consumption isnot available fully for three preceding billingmonth, the available consumption of suchlesser period shall be deemed sufficient forcomputing the consumption, providedconsumption of atleast one full billing month isclearly established. Notwithstanding anythingspecified in this condition, the quantity ofelectricity supplied shall be assessed by theboard on the basis of production figures ofusage of electricity or on such other basis asthe board may keep proper. " ( 5 ) IN my opinion, even a plain reading of the above extracted regulation-28 (a) bearing the heading "faulty meters" that was prevailing in1977, bill for the month in which the faulty meterdid not show the correct reading of the electricenergy consumed in that month ought to havebeen prepared on the basis of the average consumptionover the preceding 3 months' periodand that would be the amount that would becomepayable by the consumer. Therefore, the k. e. b,had to prepare the bill for the month of april,1977 by taking the average consumption ofelectric energy during the preceding 3 monthsviz. January to march, 1977, as has been pleadedby the plaintiff in the plaint and not on the basisof the highest recording in any 3 months duringthe period of 12 months immediately precedingthe month in which the faulty meter did not showthe recording. January to march, 1977, as has been pleadedby the plaintiff in the plaint and not on the basisof the highest recording in any 3 months duringthe period of 12 months immediately precedingthe month in which the faulty meter did not showthe recording. The said procedure adopted bythe k. e. b. cannot be regarded as proper even ifit is possible to say that 'the year' had to be understoodin the sense of 12 months immediatelypreceding the month in which the faulty meterdid not record the correct reading inasmuch as inthe instant case the meter was burnt in the month of april, 1977. What rule-28 (a) (i) bearing the heading "faulty meters" extracted above contemplates is that the amount payable by the consumer will have to be first determined on the basis of the average of the highest consumption recorded during any 3 months of the year in which the fall in consumption is noticed and it was only in case it was not possible to do so, then on the basis of the average of the highest consumption recorded during any 3 months of the preceding year. But, in the instant case, it was possible for the k. e. b. to determine the average of the highest consumption by taking into consideration the meter readings in the months of january, February and march, 1977. Therefore, it was not permissible for the k. e. b. to take into consideration the meter readings as recorded in the months of April and september, 1976 and january, 1977. In my opinion, it was permissible for the k. e. b. to do so if the faulty meter did not record the correct reading either in the month of January or February or even March of the year as there were no 3 clear months in that calendar year. ( 6 ) VIEWED from any angle, therefore, the bill sent by the k. e. b. to the plaintiff claiming rs. 510. 10 ps. For 811 units for the month of april,1977 was not justifiable and, on the other hand, the stand taken by the plaintiff in their plaint is quite in conformity with the Provisions of regulation-28 (a) that was prevailing in 1977. ( 7 ) CONSEQUENT upon my above conclusion, the impugned judgment of the lower appellate court does not call for interference. ( 7 ) CONSEQUENT upon my above conclusion, the impugned judgment of the lower appellate court does not call for interference. ( 8 ) IN the result, the appeal is dismissed with liberty to the appellant-k. e. b. to prepare a fresh bill for the month of april, 1977 by taking the average of the electric energy consumed by the plaintiff during the months of January to march, 1977 and then to send a revised bill to the plaintiff calling upon them to make payment of the amount claimed in the revised bill within the prescribed period if the amount so claimed is already not paid by the plaintiff as asserted by them. Till then, defendant-k. e. b. shall not disconnect electric supply to the installation bearing r. r. No. 1085 of the plaintiff. ( 9 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, both parties are directed to bear their own costs throughout. --- *** --- .