Judgment :- K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. This appeal has been preferred by the Kerala State Electricity Board and others. 2. Original petition was preferred by the respondent herein seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts. P1, P3, P5 and P6 and also for a direction to the Electricity Board not to realize any amount from him exceeding six months prior to the date of detection of the defects in the meter and also for other consequential reliefs. Learned single judge allowed the writ petition and set aside Ext.P1 bill demanding a sum of Rs.1,73,048/-. The Board is aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single judge and submitted that learned single judge has committed an error in interfering with Ext.P1 bill accepting the contention of the consumer that the meter was faulty. 3. A few facts which are relevant have to be borne in mind for a proper understanding of the issues raised in this case. Petitioner is a consumer of a Kerala State Electricity Board having consumer number 7564 of Electrical Major Section No.1, Thodupuzha. He is conducting a super market in the premises in the name and style “Pulimoottil Super Market”, Thodupuzha, a firm of which he is the Managing Partner. During the period which is relevant for our consideration, the Board used to issue provisional invoice card to every consumer. According to the petitioner, from October 1994 he was paying fixed monthly charge of Rs.886/- which was subsequently revised and fixed at Rs.1,061/- and later Rs.1,875/- and then Rs.2,268/-. On the basis of the said fixed monthly bill, irrespective of the units of energy consumed by the consumer, Board used to collect the amount. Amount reflected in the provisional card has no bearing to the units consumed. During the period from September 1993 to December 1998, consumer had consumed 59303 units of energy and whatever amount he had paid on the basis of the provisional card has to be adjusted in the consolidated bill issued to the consumer. During the period from September 1993 to December 1998 consumer had paid only Rs.72,607/- as per the provisional invoice card. For the unit of energy actually consumed by the petitioner he had to pay an amount of Rs.2,29,923.50. The Board issued Ext. P1 bill dated 25.3.1999 along with details attached, for the energy consumed from September 1993 to December 1998 after giving credit to the amount already paid. 4. For the unit of energy actually consumed by the petitioner he had to pay an amount of Rs.2,29,923.50. The Board issued Ext. P1 bill dated 25.3.1999 along with details attached, for the energy consumed from September 1993 to December 1998 after giving credit to the amount already paid. 4. Provisional invoice card used to be issued to the consumer based on the average consumption. Actual consumption could be ascertained only when final reading is taken from the meter installed in the premises of the consumer. Later for the period for 1/99 to 4/99 the Board issued Ext.P3 bill demanding Rs.27,563/-. Consumer is aggrieved by both the bills and preferred appeals 1/99 and 2/99 before the Executive Engineer, Electrical Section. Both the appeals were heard together. Executive engineer also heard counsel forte consumer as well as the consumer. The main argument raised by the consumer before the Executive engineer was that additional bill did not reflect the actual consumption during the relevant period due to inaccuracy of the meter. Consequently meter was sent for testing to the Meter Testing Unit at Pallom. Petitioner had remitted the testing fee also. Test report dated 26.10.1999 proved that the consumption showed in the meter was less than actual consumption by 8%. Details of the test report and results were explained to the consumer in the sitting on 26.11.1999. Executive Engineer therefore rejected the appeal. Contention of the consumer was that the meter was recording excess consumption. In fact it had recorded less consumption of 8% which is to the advantage of the consumer. In such circumstances appeals were rejected. 5. We heard counsel on either sides. Direction was sought to refer the matter to the Electrical Inspectorate. At this distance of time it cannot be accepted especially when the petitioner had an opportunity to make such a request before the Executive engineer. Further only when the bill was received on the basis of actual consumption the consumer for the first time raised the contention that the meter was faulty. In the counter affidavit filed by the Board it is specifically stated as follows: “The petitioner never requested that the disputed meter has to be sent to Electrical Inspector. If such a demand was forthcoming there is no impediment for that. In the counter affidavit filed by the Board it is specifically stated as follows: “The petitioner never requested that the disputed meter has to be sent to Electrical Inspector. If such a demand was forthcoming there is no impediment for that. There is nothing in Rule 26 (4) of Indian Electricity Act prohibits the Board authorities to remove the meter for sending the same for testing. The second respondent rightly disallowed the appeals since the meter test result revealed that the meter is slow under low load condition. Percentage error at 10% of full load, unity power factor, is (-) 8.0% that means the meter is slow and was showing lesser consumption than the actual consumption by -8%. So the result is that even though the meter was faulty the advantage of the same was received by the petitioner since the disputed meter was showing lesser consumption that the actual consumption. So as per the test result the consumer should have paid more than the demand notice.” We are of the view, since the petitioner had not raised the contention that meter was faulty during September 1993 to December 1998 or when the appeal was taken up for hearing before the Executive Engineer and due to the fact that the meter was showing lesser consumption than the actual consumption by -8% petitioner is liable to remit the amount for the excess energy consumed. Consumer has paid during the above mentioned period only the fixed charges which is not the actual energy consumed by the consumer. In the circumstances we may also refer to the decision of the Division Bench of this court in Sourthern India Marine Products Co. V. K.S.E.B. (1995 (2) K.L.T. 167) which states that in a case where an electric meter is not recording correct consumption of energy on account of the defectiveness of the wiring Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act is not attracted. 6. We therefore find no infirmity in the Board serving a consolidated bill after assessing the energy consumed by the consumer. In such circumstances, we are inclined to allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned single judge and the consumer is given six months’ time from today to payoff the balance amount due on the basis of Ext.P1 bill, in six equal monthly installments starting from 15.09.2005. In such circumstances, we are inclined to allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned single judge and the consumer is given six months’ time from today to payoff the balance amount due on the basis of Ext.P1 bill, in six equal monthly installments starting from 15.09.2005. Petitioner would make available copy of this judgment before the concerned Section and the concerned Officer would reschedule the amount on the basis of the bill by way of installments. If the petitioner commits default in payment of the amount it is open to the Board to take appropriate steps including disconnection of supply.