R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J. ( 1 ) THE electrical installation at petitioner's factory at shahabad bears r. r. No. Sabd h. t. 2. The meter fixed to the said installation to measure and record the electricity consumption, was not recording between 24-9-1990 and 29-10-1990, on account of the 'b' phase fuse of the potential transformer 11 kv. /110 v of f-7 feeder being blown off on 24-9-1990 which was replaced/rectified on 29-10-1990. ( 2 ) IN regard to the months of September and October 1990, the board had initially raised bills for a consumption of 23,10,480 units and 17,50,080 units. These were paid by the petitioner. Subsequently, the board sent revised bills dated 11-1-1991 for September and October 1990 reworking the consumption figures by taking note of the consumption during the period when the meter was not functioning. As per the revised bills, petitioner was required to pay Rs. 11,15,062. 20 for September 1990 and Rs. 22,49,897/70 for October 1990, in all Rs. 33,64,959/90 to be paid by 10-2-1991. As the meter was not functioning between 24-9-1990 and 29-10-1990, the revised bills were made on tha basis of an assessment of the electricity that would have been consumed by the petitioner and on the basis of the meter readings, before the blow-out and after the repairs. The petitioner did not agree with the supplemental demands and challenged the two bills dated 11-1-1991 in W. P. No. 10448 of 1991. On 8-11-1993, the petition was dismissed reserving liberty to petitioner to avail the alternative, remedy by filing an appeal under regulation 46. 01 of the Karnataka electricity board electricity supply regulations ('regulations' for short ). The petitioner challenged the said order of the learned single judge by filing an appeal in w. a. No. 306 of 1994. The appeal was disposed of by the division bench, by order dated 16-3-1994 by relegating the petitioner to the remedy under Section 26 (6) of the Indian electricity Act, 1910, ('act' for short) subject to petitioner paying Rs. 8,00,000/- towards the amount claimed under the two bills dated 11-1-1991. In this manner, the dispute was referred to the electrical inspector (third respondent) for decision under Section 26 (6) of the Indian electricity Act, 1910 ('act' for short ). ( 3 ) THE chief electrical inspector considered the matter and passed an order dated 24-2-1996 (annexure 'e' ). 8,00,000/- towards the amount claimed under the two bills dated 11-1-1991. In this manner, the dispute was referred to the electrical inspector (third respondent) for decision under Section 26 (6) of the Indian electricity Act, 1910 ('act' for short ). ( 3 ) THE chief electrical inspector considered the matter and passed an order dated 24-2-1996 (annexure 'e' ). He determined the quantum of electricity consumed during the said two months on pro rata basis. He determined the consumption as 28,88,100 units for September 1990 and 28,15,200 units for October 1990. As the board's ledgers showed that petitioner had already been billed for 23,10,480 units for September 1990 and 17,50,080 units for October 1990, he arrived at the balance units to be billed as 4,11,570 units and 9,17,580 units (after deducting the colony consumption of 1,66,050 units and 1,47,540 units ). He calculated the charges payable for the said units at Rs. 1. 15 per unit and tax at Rs. 0. 10 per unit and determined the additional amount payable as Rs. 5,14,462. 50 for September 1990 and Rs. 11,46,975/- for October 1990, (in addition to the amount already paid by the petitioner for a consumption of 23,10,480 units and 17,50,080 units) in all Rs. 16,61,437. 80. He thus reduced the revised demand of Rs. 33,64,959. 90 made as per the two bills dated 11-1-1991 by Rs. 17,03,523. 20 and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 16,61,437. 50 only towards the two revised bills dated 11-1-1991. ( 4 ) PETITIONER had paid a sum of rs 2,00,000/- as per receipt dated 27-3-1991 apart from Rs. 8,00,000/- paid as per the direction in w. a. No. 306 of 1994, acknowledged by receipt dated 25-8-1994. After deducting the same, the amount due as per the order of the chief electrical inspector is Rs. 6,61,437. 50. Hence, the board has sent a letter dated 18-3-1996 (annexure 'f') claiming a sum of Rs. 6,61,437/- as the balance due for September 1990 and October 1990 (described as back-bill charges) and a sum of Rs. 14,98,967/- as interest on the amount due from March 1991 to March 1996. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the claim for Rs. 6,61,437. 50. Hence, the board has sent a letter dated 18-3-1996 (annexure 'f') claiming a sum of Rs. 6,61,437/- as the balance due for September 1990 and October 1990 (described as back-bill charges) and a sum of Rs. 14,98,967/- as interest on the amount due from March 1991 to March 1996. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the claim for Rs. 14,98,967/- as interest, has filed this petition and sought quashing of Annexure 'f', dated 18-3-1996 and a direction to the board not to claim or levy interest on the amount found due in terms of the order dated 24-2-1996 of the chief electrical inspector. Though the prayer is for quashing Annexure 'f' in entirety, the petitioner's counsel has made it clear that the challenge is only in regard to the demand for interest and not the amount found due by the third respondent. No argument was advanced to challenge the determination of electricity consumption for the disputed period nor is the order dated 24-2-1996 passed by the electrical inspector challenged. ( 5 ) THE petitioner contends that when the meter was not recording the consumption of electricity and the consumer disputes the quantum of electricity consumption fixed by the board for such period when the meter was not working, the charges for such disputed consumption does not become due by the consumer until the electrical inspector estimates the quantum of energy supplied to the consumer and determines the amount due under Section 26 (6) of the act. In other words, the petitioner contends that the liability to pay the electricity charges for consumption during the disputed period when the meter was not working, arises only when the electrical inspector determines the liability and not earlier; and that in this case, as the excess consumption and the amount payable was determined by the electrical inspector only on 24-2-1996, interest even if payable, could be demanded only from 24-2-1996 and not for any period prior to that date. 5. 1 it is also pointed out that the board had submitted bills for 23,10,480 units and 17,50,080 units for September and October 1990 and they had been paid without protest. Only when the board issued revised bills for the very same period on 11-1-1991, the petitioner disputed the increased demand. 5. 1 it is also pointed out that the board had submitted bills for 23,10,480 units and 17,50,080 units for September and October 1990 and they had been paid without protest. Only when the board issued revised bills for the very same period on 11-1-1991, the petitioner disputed the increased demand. It is contended that having regard to the principles laid down in madhya pradesh electricity board and others v basantibai, topasa v Karnataka electricity board and another affirmed in Karnataka electricity board and another v topasa and k. s. upadhya v Uttar Pradesh state electricity board and another, no supplemental bill for additional amount could be raised at all in regard to the period when the meter was not functioning, until decision by the electrical inspector under Section 26 (6) of the act; and if the supplemental bill could not be raised until decision by the electrical inspector, the amount determined as due by the electrical inspector will become due and payable only from the date of such determination by the electrical inspector. 5. 2 it is next contended that the electrical inspector acts as a statutory tribunal to decide a dispute between the board and the consumer; and when he passes an order under Section 26 (6), what can be claimed by the board is what is determined by him as due and nothing more; and in this case, as the electrical inspector did not award any interest, in his order dated 24-2-1996, the board is not entitled to interest. A comparative reference is made to decrees of courts and awards of arbitrators, to contend that what is not granted by a court or tribunal cannot be claimed. It is also contended that the board cannot charge interest under regulation 30. 05 of Karnataka electricity board electricity supply regulations, as the said regulation will not apply to amounts due under orders passed by the electrical inspector under Section 26 (6) of the act; and that regulation 30. 05 will apply only where a bill presented by the board for energy consumption under regulation 30. 02 is not paid within fifteen days of presentation as per regulation 30. 03. 05 will apply only where a bill presented by the board for energy consumption under regulation 30. 02 is not paid within fifteen days of presentation as per regulation 30. 03. ( 6 ) THUS, the point that arises for consideration is where the electrical inspector does not award interest on the amount found due by him under an order passed under section 26 (6), whether the board is entitled to claim interest and if so, from what date and at what rate. ( 7 ) ELECTRICAL energy is goods. When the board supplies electrical energy to the consumer, there is sale of goods. The purpose of the meter is to measure the quantity of goods sold, so that the goods sold can be billed. As per the regulations, the quantity supplied has to be billed every month and the amount is payable within fifteen days of presentation of bill. Non-receipt of the bill by the consumer is not a valid reason for non-payment. In this case, there has been a sale of goods, delivery by the seller and acceptance by consumption by the purchaser. There is a dispute regarding the quantity delivered, on account of defect in the measuring instrument. In the case of such dispute, the manner of determining the quantity of supply and the person who should determine the quantity is specified by law. Applying the principles relating to sale of goods and the provisions of the electricity act and the regulations, it is evident that (a) the pecuniary liability to pay the electricity charges arises on consumption of energy; (b) the price (electricity charges) becomes payable on issue of the bill; and (c) liability to pay interest on the bill amount arises on the expiry of fifteen days from the date of presentation of issue of the bill. ( 8 ) A reference to the relevant Provisions of Indian electricity Act, 1910 and the Karnataka electricity board electricity supply Regulation, 1988, is necessary to decide the question. 8. ( 8 ) A reference to the relevant Provisions of Indian electricity Act, 1910 and the Karnataka electricity board electricity supply Regulation, 1988, is necessary to decide the question. 8. 1 relevant portions of sub-sections (1) and (6) of Section 26 of electricity Act, and extracted below: 26 (1) "in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the amount of energy supplied to a consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply shall be ascertained by means of a correct meter, and the licensee shall, if required by the consumer, cause the consumer to be supplied with such a meter;----" 26 (6) where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter referred to in sub-section (1) is or is not correct, the matter shall be decided, upon the application of either party, by an electrical inspector; and where the meter has, in the opinion of such inspector ceased to be correct, such inspector shall estimate the amount of the energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply, during such time, not exceeding six months, as the meter shall not, in the opinion of such inspector, have been correct; but save as aforesaid, the register of the meter shall, in the absence of fraud, be conclusive proof, of such amount or quantity;----" 8. 2 regulation 30. 01 provides that the board will furnish the consumer every month or at such intervals, as may be prescribed by the board from time to time, the power supply bills for the actual, or in its absence, the assessed demand and or consumption, either at the spot or by post. Regulation 30. 02 provides that non-receipt of the bill by a consumer is not a valid reason for non-payment. Regulation 30. 03 provides that the bill shall be paid within 15 days from the date of presentation of the bill. Regulation 28 provides that where the consumer disputes the accuracy of the board's meter, the same shall be got tested by the board or the electrical inspector and also provides for the consequences that will follow. Regulation 29. Regulation 30. 03 provides that the bill shall be paid within 15 days from the date of presentation of the bill. Regulation 28 provides that where the consumer disputes the accuracy of the board's meter, the same shall be got tested by the board or the electrical inspector and also provides for the consequences that will follow. Regulation 29. 02 provides that if the meter is found not recording (for any reason other than tampering), the consumer will be billed for a period of not more than six billing months preceding the date of inspection/testing, on the basis of average energy consumption of the immediately preceding three billing months when the meter was recording properly, plus demand/fixed charges. The said regulation further provides that notwithstanding where it is established that a meter is out of order only for a few days in a billing month, the consumption for such period shall be computed on pro rata basis of the consumption recorded for the remaining number of days in the billing month. Regulation 30. 05 provides that in the case of any belated payment, simple interest will be levied at the rate of 2% per month from the expiry of due date. 8. 3 though the regulations make an attempt to distinguish between meters which are defective (leading to faulty recording) and meters which are not recording, the division bench of this court, in the earlier round of litigation (by its order dated 16-3-1994 in w. a. No. 306 of 1994) has proceeded on the basis that where the meter is not recording, it has to be treated as defective, thereby attracting Section 26 (6 ). ( 9 ) IT is evident from the Provisions of Karnataka electricity board electricity regulations, that the board is entitled to submit bills even for the period when the meter is defective or not recording. When a bill for such period is presented, the consumer has the choice of either accepting the bill and making payment or disputing the bill amount in which event the matter will have to be referred to the electrical inspector for decision under Section 26 (6 ). Thus, the mere fact that the meter was defective or not functioning, does not mean that the board cannot send any bill at all. On the other hand, the board can and in fact, has to send the bill. Thus, the mere fact that the meter was defective or not functioning, does not mean that the board cannot send any bill at all. On the other hand, the board can and in fact, has to send the bill. But the board cannot disconnect electricity supply for non-payment of such bill nor enforce immediate payment of the bill, pending decision by the electrical inspector. A consumer who chooses not to pay the bill amount, but disputes it on the ground that the meter was defective or that meter was not functioning, will have to pay the amount found due on the decision of the electrical inspector, with interest from the due date (that is from the expiry of 15 days from the meter reading date) to date of payment. ( 10 ) LET me next consider the contention that the liability to pay electricity charges, for the period when the meter was not functioning, arises only on determination of the amount due by the electrical inspector. Firstly it should be noticed that under Section 26 (6), the electrical inspector is not required to determine the amount payable. He has to estimate only the quantum of energy supplied to the consumer. Secondly the distinction between the ascertainment of a pre-existing pecuniary liability and ascertainment whether there is any pecuniary liability at all, should be borne in mind. In the case of supply of goods, where the quantity has to be determined, there is an existing pecuniary liability, but its extent has to be ascertained; that is, the liability to pay the price arises on delivery and acceptance of goods, though payment may get postponed till the submission of a bill after quantifying the goods supplied and calculating the price in terms of the contract. But in a claim for damages, no liability is incurred on the date of breach of contract; the liability arises only when there is an adjudication as to whether there is liability or not, by the court or appropriate tribunal and such liability is assessed and quantified. ( 11 ) A claim for damages does not give rise to a debt until the liability is adjudicated and damages are assessed by a court or adjudicating authority. ( 11 ) A claim for damages does not give rise to a debt until the liability is adjudicated and damages are assessed by a court or adjudicating authority. When there is a breach of contract, the party who commits breach does not eo instanti incur any pecuniary obligation, nor does the party complaining of the breach becomes automatically entitled to any damages from the party committing breach. The only right which accrues, on account of breach of contract, is the right to sue for damages. ( 12 ) I can do no better than to extract the following passages from the decision rendered by chagla, c. j. in iron and hardware company v shamlal and brothers, which brings out the distinction between a claim for a debt and claim for damages: "now, in order that there should be a debt there must be an existing obligation. The payment may be due immediately or it may be due in future, but the obligation must arise in order that the debt should be due. It may even be that the actual amount due in respect of the debt may require ascertainment by some mechanical process or by the taking of accounts. But even when the actual amount is to be ascertained the obligation must exist. It is well-settled that when there is a breach of contract, the only right that accrues to the person who complains of the breach is the right to file a suit for recovering damages. The breach of contract does not give rise to any debt and therefore it has been held that a right to recover damages is not assignable because it is not, a chose in action. . . . Before it could be said of a claim that it is a debt, the 'court must be satisfied that there is a pecuniary liability upon the person against whom the claim is made, and the question is whether in law, a person who commits a breach of contract becomes pecuniarily liable to the other party to the contract. In my opinion it would not be true to say that a person who commits a breach of the contract incurs any pecuniary liability, nor would it be true to say that the other party to the contract who complains of the breach has any amount due to him from the other party. . . In my opinion it would not be true to say that a person who commits a breach of the contract incurs any pecuniary liability, nor would it be true to say that the other party to the contract who complains of the breach has any amount due to him from the other party. . . Now, damages are the compensation which a court of law gives to a party for the injury which he has sustained. But, and this is most important to note, he does not get damages or compensation by reason of any existing obligation on the part of the person who has committed the breach. He gets compensation as a result of the fiat or the court. Therefore, no pecuniary liability arises till the court has determined that the party complaining of the breach is entitled to damages. Therefore, when damages are assessed, it would not be true to say that what the court is doing is ascertaining a pecuniary liability which already existed. The court in the first place must decide that the defendant is liable and then it proceeds to assess what that liability is. But till that determination there is no liability at all upon the defendant. The expression "to be ascertained" may well apply to a case which I have indicated earlier where the pecuniary liability cannot be ascertained without accounts being taken or some other process being gone through. But the whole basis of a suit for damages is that at the date of the suit there is no pecuniary liability upon the defendant and the plaintiff has come to court in order to establish a pecuniary liability. . . " 12. 1 thus the principles relating to ascertainment of damages are clearly different from the principles relating to ascertainment of price for supply of goods. The petitioner cannot import the principles relating to ascertainment of damages, in a matter relating to ascertainment of the quantity or price of goods sold, to contend that there is no liability until there is adjudication of such liability by the electrical inspector. The petitioner cannot import the principles relating to ascertainment of damages, in a matter relating to ascertainment of the quantity or price of goods sold, to contend that there is no liability until there is adjudication of such liability by the electrical inspector. It would indeed lead to a strange result if the petitioner's contention is accepted with reference to supply of electrical energy; if petitioner's contention is to be accepted, the result would be that if the meter is recording and payment is not made on presentation of the bill, the consumer will be liable to pay the interest on the expiry of 15 days from the date of reading of the meter and presentation of the bill; but, for the very same supply of electric energy, if the meter was not recording, there would be no liability to pay interest until the amount is adjudicated by the electrical inspector. Such a contention has basis neither in law nor in logic. As the claim of the board is for goods supplied and not for damages, the petitioner's contention that there is no liability at all until assessment of the amount by the electrical inspector under Section 26 (6) cannot be accepted. ( 13 ) LET me now consider whether any of the decisions relied on by the petitioner, throw any light on the question of interest. 13. 1 in basantibai's, case, supra, the Supreme Court held: "it is for the (electrical) inspector to determine whether the meter is correct or not and in case the inspector is of the opinion that the meter is not correct, he shall estimate the amount of energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply during a period not exceeding six months and direct the consumer to pay the same. . . . . a dispute regarding the commission of fraud in tampering with the meter and breaking the body seal is outside the ambit of Section 26 (6) of the said act. An electrical inspector has, therefore, no jurisdiction to decide such cases of fraud. It is only the dispute as to whether the meter is/is not correct or it is inherently defective or faulty, not recording correctly the electricity consumed, can be decided by the electrical inspector under the Provisions of the said act. An electrical inspector has, therefore, no jurisdiction to decide such cases of fraud. It is only the dispute as to whether the meter is/is not correct or it is inherently defective or faulty, not recording correctly the electricity consumed, can be decided by the electrical inspector under the Provisions of the said act. " "if the electrical inspector comes to the finding that the meter is faulty and due to some defect, it has not registered the actual consumption of electrical energy, then the inspector will estimate the amount of energy consumed and will fix the amount to be paid in respect of such energy consumed within a period not exceeding six months. The appellant 1 (electricity board) is not competent, pending the determination of this dispute by the electrical inspector, to issue the impugned notice threatening disconnection of supply of electricity for non-payment of supplementary bill prepared and sent by it. The board is also not competent to prepare and send a supplementary bill in respect of energy consumed by the respondent from the one phase which stopped functioning and did not record any consumption of energy". 13. 2 in k. s. upadhya's case, supra, the Allahabad high court held: ". . . A demand made by the board from a consumer for any sum of money with respect to alleged supply of energy, if it is not based on an actual reading of the meter or is the result of such reading taken without notice or information to the consumer, is not a valid demand and if resisted by the consumer, such claim cannot be legally recovered from him". 13. 3 in topasa's case, supra, this court held that where there is a dispute about the functioning of the meter, it is not open to the board to unilaterally raise a bill without referring the matter to the electrical inspector under Section 26 (6 ). This decision was affirmed by a division bench in appeal, in Karnataka electricity board's case, supra, wherein it is held that whenever a dispute arises regarding the correctness of a meter installed in the premises of a consumer, such a dispute has to be decided by the electrical inspector and until and unless a finding is recorded by the electrical inspector, the board cannot prepare any supplementary bill on the ground that the meter was under-recording. 13. 13. 4 the above decisions do not deal with the question of interest. Nor do they deal with the question as to from what date the liability to pay the charges for electricity consumed arises. These decisions are merely concerned with the question as to whether the board can enforce recovery of its claim for charges for energy consumed during the period when the meter was not defective or not functioning, without determination of the quantity by the electrical inspector. These decisions only hold that if the meter was not functioning and therefore did not record the actual consumption of energy, and a dispute exists between the board and the consumer about the actual quantum of energy consumed, the board can neither disconnect the electricity nor issue a supplementary bill making any additional claim, pending adjudication by the electrical inspector. This however, does not help the petitioner. ( 14 ) WHILE it may not be possible for the board to recover any amount from the consumer until determination of the quantum of energy consumed, by the electrical inspector, the determination of the quantity supplied, by the electrical inspector, necessarily relates back to the period when the energy was consumed. Consequently when the electrical inspector determines the quantity of electricity consumed for any period, the board becomes entitled to claim the electricity charges for the quantity determined as each month's supply, with interest at 2% per month from the date of expiry of 15 days from the date prescribed for meter reading/presentation of the bill, to date of payment. Hence, the claim for interest by the board as per Annexure t', dated 18-3-1996, from March 1991 (in regard to the consumption for September and October 1990) to date of payment, is in order. ( 15 ) THE contention that interest cannot be claimed unless electrical inspector awards interest is also not tenable. The province of the electrical inspector is merely to estimate the amount of energy supplied to the consumer. He has no jurisdiction to award any interest. Any adjudication by electrical inspector as to the amount payable is only a matter of convenience. Once the quantity of energy is determined by the electrical inspector, the amount to be paid towards electricity charges and interest to be paid has to be calculated in accordance with the applicable power tariff and the electricity supply regulations. Any adjudication by electrical inspector as to the amount payable is only a matter of convenience. Once the quantity of energy is determined by the electrical inspector, the amount to be paid towards electricity charges and interest to be paid has to be calculated in accordance with the applicable power tariff and the electricity supply regulations. ( 16 ) HENCE, there is no merit in the contentions of the petitioner and therefore the petition is dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .