JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. 1. In both these petitions, observations made by the Ombudsman under the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) vide order dated 5.12.2007, to the extent reproduced herein below, is under challenge:- "1. After going through the points raised in the petition, reply of the respondent, documentary evidence produced during the arguments, hearing both the parties view points during the hearing of the arguments, Forums Order and Order by the Chief Electrical Inspector, the Ombudsmen has reached to the conclusion that the Complainants claim for the line losses though is valid and correct yet the percentage of line losses are required to be recalculated by the Respondent Board on the monthly average between the period 5/89 to 12/89 and the refund to that effect be adjusted in the energy bills for the ensuing months or against the arrears of the Complainants factory. In such cases Respondent Board may note for future that where the meter is not installed at the premises of the Consumer or cannot be installed at the premises of the Consumer due to some problems, specific reference to this effect be made in the A&A Form duly signed by the consumer for having his specific token consent of installation of meter away from his premises. The appeal/petition of the petitioner is accepted to the extent that the line losses i.e. 5.67% are allowed. The order of the Forum is, therefore, modified to that extent. Interest demand by the petitioner is not allowed. It is so ordered this day of 5th December, 2007." 2. While returning findings, to the effect that the meter was required to be installed in the premises of the consumer, it is alleged by the consumer that no interest stands awarded on the payments made towards the amount determined for line losses. 3. Certain facts are not in dispute. The Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, under the provisions of the Act, is the supplier of electricity. The electric connection from 220 KB Sub Station, Raja-Ka-Bagh, District Kangra stands supplied to M/s Jawalaji Alloy Pvt. Ltd. (consumer). It is not in dispute that the electricity meter was not installed within the premises of the consumer. It was installed at Sub Station Bodh, Raja-Ka-Bagh, District Kangra, a distant place, at a distance of 6 Kilometers. The electric connection from 220 KB Sub Station, Raja-Ka-Bagh, District Kangra stands supplied to M/s Jawalaji Alloy Pvt. Ltd. (consumer). It is not in dispute that the electricity meter was not installed within the premises of the consumer. It was installed at Sub Station Bodh, Raja-Ka-Bagh, District Kangra, a distant place, at a distance of 6 Kilometers. A load of 768.200 KB stood sanctioned in favour of the consumer vide order dated 15th July, 1986 where after, the meter stood installed. 4. It is also not in dispute that the consumer made out a grievance with regard to non installation of the electricity meter at its premises which eventually stood redressed sometime in the month of May, 1989. During this period for the electricity consumed, the Board fastened liability of line losses upon the consumer, which grievance stood vented by him, under the redressal grievances mechanism provided under the Act. Grievance stands redressed in terms of the impugned order referred to and reproduced here in above. 5. Section 26 of the Act, enjoins a duty upon the supplier to install a correct meter and Rule 57 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, so framed under the Act, mandates the licencee (Board)/supplier to install a meter/ apparatus of appropriate capacity, "in the premises of the consumer". Noticeably, in the instant case, the licencee had also issued instructions with regard to installation of meters and rentals thereof. Instructions No.101 and 102 unambiguously provides installation of the meter by the licencee/Board within the premises of the consumer. The law, as also statutory instructions stand correctly and completely applied and construed by the Ombudsman. There is neither any misinterpretation nor misapplication: Under these circumstances, it cannot be held that the Ombudsman has erred in directing the licencee to recalculate the monthly line losses for the period in question. The liability for the line losses rightly stands fastened upon the licencee. 6. According to the consumer, the amount determined by the licencee, towards the line losses, for the period in question, already stands deposited, which fact could not be verified by Mr. Satyen Vaidya, learned Senior Counsel, who further states that in fact, suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 86,00,000/- stands filed against the consumer which is pending adjudication before this Court. Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned counsel for the consumer clarifies that the same does not pertain to the dispute in question. 7. Satyen Vaidya, learned Senior Counsel, who further states that in fact, suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 86,00,000/- stands filed against the consumer which is pending adjudication before this Court. Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned counsel for the consumer clarifies that the same does not pertain to the dispute in question. 7. Under these circumstances, with the aforesaid observations, both the petitions stand disposed of, in the following terms: The impugned order dated 5.12.2007, passed by Himachal Pradesh Electricity Ombudsman, in Case No.6 & 10 of 2007, titled as M/s Jwalaji Alloy Pvt. Ltd. v. The H.P. State Electricity Board and others, is modified to the extent that the transaction being commercial in nature, the consumer shall be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum, on the amount so deposited by him towards the line losses, for the period in question. This shall be subject to adjustments of dues, if any, payable by the consumer to the licencee. The pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.