JUDGMENT : Rajesh H. Shukla, J. The present Second Appeal is filed by the appellant UGVCL under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code challenging the impugned judgment and order passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.89/2008 by the leaned 2nd Additional District Judge, Mehsana dated 30.08.2016 confirming the judgment and decree passed in Special Civil Suit No.5/1999 by the learned 5th Additional Sr. Civil Judge, Mehsana dated 16.02.2008 posing substantial questions of law as follows: "1. In case where the meter is running slow and when the consumer agrees and makes payment of the bill for the slowness of the meter, whether it is mandatory under Section 26(6) of The Indian Electricity Act, 1910 for the licensee to refer the meter to the Electrical Inspector? 2. Whether Section 26(6) of The Indian Electricity Act, 1910 provides that if the consumer has not committed any mischief, then the consumer is not liable to pay the bill for the slowness of the meter?" 2. The background of the facts briefly summarized are as follows: Suit came to be filed by the respondent herein, original plaintiff against the recovery of the bill on the ground that it was unauthorized and illegal. The issue relates to the functioning of the meter and as per the appellant herein, original defendant, the meter was running slow and, therefore, it was checked and the report was made and as per document Exhs.53 and 54, bill was issued for the amount of the charges on the ground that as the instrument/meter was defective and was running slow, the appellant original defendant was entitled to issue supplementary bill for the consumption of the electricity. This was challenged by the respondent, original plaintiff and the trial court on appreciation of material and evidence passed the judgment and decree setting aside the demand on the basis of bill Exh.34 to the tune of Rs.3,72,389.90 raised by the appellant herein and directed to refund the amount to the consumer, the respondent, original plaintiff. Therefore, it was challenged by way of Regular Civil Appeal No.89/2009 by the appellant herein before the District Court and the Additional District Judge, Mehsana dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed in Special Civil Suit No.5/1999 dated 16.02.2008 by the trial court. Therefore, the present Second Appeal is preferred posing substantial questions of law as stated above. 3. Learned advocate, Ms. Therefore, the present Second Appeal is preferred posing substantial questions of law as stated above. 3. Learned advocate, Ms. Lilu Bhaya referred to the background of the facts and submitted that Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 provides for raising bill where the meter is not reflecting correct reading. It was submitted that for a period of six months, it could be made and, therefore, as the meter was not reading properly, it was corrected and in exercise of power under Section 26(6) of the Act, 1910, the meter was replaced and bill was raised. Learned advocate, Ms. Bhaya submitted that there is no question of any tampering with the meter but even apart from tampering with the meter, if it is not showing or reflecting correct reading for the consumption of the energy, meter could be changed and in exercise of power under Section 26(6) of the Act, 1910, consumer could be charged for a period of six months. She has therefore tried to submit that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate this aspect. She referred to the observations made by the first Appellate Court also and submitted that as the relevant aspects in the statutory provision are not appreciated, the present Second Appeal may be entertained. In support of the contentions, she has also referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Hyderabad Vanaspathi Ltd. v. A.P. State Electricity Board & Ors., reported in (1998) 4 SCC 470 . 4. Though the submissions have been made posing the substantial questions of law as stated above, it is well accepted that normally the concurrent findings of facts may not be disturbed in exercise of discretion under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is well accepted that normally the concurrent finding of facts are not disturbed unless there is any substantial question of law which can be said to have been involved in the facts of the case. Much reliance placed on the provision of Section 26(6) of the Act, 1910 is required to be considered. It is well accepted that normally the concurrent finding of facts are not disturbed unless there is any substantial question of law which can be said to have been involved in the facts of the case. Much reliance placed on the provision of Section 26(6) of the Act, 1910 is required to be considered. The provision of Section 26(6) of the Act, 1910 provided, "26(6) Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter referred to in subsection (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: Provided that before either a licensee or a consumer applies to the Electrical Inspector under this subsection, he shall give to the other party not less than seven days' notice of his intention so to do." 5. Thus the proviso clearly provides that before either licensee or a consumer applies to the Electrical Inspector under this subsection, he shall give it to the other party not less than seven days' notice of his intention to do so". In the facts of the case, there is no such procedure followed. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment in case of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board & Ors. v. Smt. Basantibai, reported in (1988) 1 SCC 23 has observed, "It is evident from the provisions of this section that a dispute as to whether any meter referred to in sub-section (1) is or is not correct has to be decided by the Electrical Inspector upon application made by either of the parties. v. Smt. Basantibai, reported in (1988) 1 SCC 23 has observed, "It is evident from the provisions of this section that a dispute as to whether any meter referred to in sub-section (1) is or is not correct has to be decided by the Electrical Inspector upon application made by either of the parties. It is for the 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. If there is an allegation of fraud committed by the consumer in tampering with the meter or manipulating the supply line or breaking the body seal of the meter resulting in not registering the amount of energy supplied to the Consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply, such a dispute does not fall within the purview of subsection of section 26. Such a dispute regarding the commission Of fraud in tampering with the meter and breaking the body seal is A 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." 6. Again the provision of Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 has also been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Belwal Spinning Mills Ltd. v. U.P.State Electricity Board, reported in AIR 1997 SC 2793 and considering earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Bombay Electricity Supply & Transport Undertaking v. Laffans (India) (P) Ltd., reported in AIR 2005 SC 2486 , it has been clearly observed with regard to the scope of Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and also the procedure, which is required to be followed. It has been clearly observed, "............. It has been clearly observed, "............. what is contemplated of Section 26(6) is a running meter but on account of some technical difficulties registered, the amount of energy supplied or the electrical quantity contained in the supply beyond the prescribed limits of error and the provision contemplates a meter which is either running slow or fast and not recording correct amount of energy supplied." 7. Thus the aspect has been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment in case of Belwal Spinning Mills Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been observed, "10. (1) Any difference or dispute arising between the licensee and the consumer, as to whether any meter has recorded or is recording correct reading or not, can be raised by either party and referred, upon the application of either party, for decision by an Electrical Inspector. (2) If the Electrical Inspector comes to the finding that the meter has ceased to be "correct", he has to determine the quantum of electricity consumed for the statutory period of six months, referred to in subsection (6). The determination made by the Electrical Inspector on twin questions (i) whether meter was correct or not, and (ii) if the meter was not correct then the estimate of supply of electricity to the consumer for the statutory period of six months, is binding on the licensee and the consumer (subject only to judicial review by a competent court). (3) xxx xxx xxx (4) Any unilateral decision of either of the parties about the correct status of the meter is not to be accepted by the other party if the other party raises objection as to the status of the meter. (5) xxx xxx xxx (6) The estimate of supply of energy by the Electrical Inspector is to be made for a period not exceeding six months calculated backwards from the date of reference to the Electrical Inspector. Thus, it is the date of reference to the Electrical Inspector which is conclusive of the period of six months; the date of inspection, the date of raising dispute and the date of adjudication are immaterial. 8. The aforesaid aspect has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in a judgment in case of Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. v. Polylink Polymers (India) Ltd. & Ors., reported in AIR 2017 GUJARAT 37. 9. 8. The aforesaid aspect has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in a judgment in case of Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. v. Polylink Polymers (India) Ltd. & Ors., reported in AIR 2017 GUJARAT 37. 9. Therefore when the statute provides that if there is any dispute or issue with regard to the defect of the meter not recording consumption properly, the procedure has to be followed and the licensee like the appellant herein cannot decide and has no jurisdiction to decide. Admittedly, the fact remains that it has not been decided by the Electrical Inspector though it was obligatory that it should have been referred to the Electrical Inspector. Admittedly there is no issue with regard to the fact that there was any theft of energy as it is not even the case of the appellant regarding the theft of energy. Therefore unless it could be shown that there was malfunctioning of the meter as decided and found by the authority like the Electrical Inspector, the appellant had no authority to issue supplementary bill in exercise of provisions of Section 26(6) of the Act, 1910, which has also been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 10. Moreover, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down broad guidelines with regard to the scope of exercise of discretion under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code after the amendment in 1976. A word of caution has been expressed with regard to the scope of Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code in Second Appeal that the concurrent finding of facts may not be disturbed unless there is any substantial question of law, which can be said to have been involved. In the facts of the case, as discussed above, law is well settled which has been interpreted and statutory provision as discussed above is also expressly providing for the procedure which has been admittedly not followed. 11. It is in these circumstances, the present Second Appeal does not call for any interference with the concurrent finding of facts as discussed above. The present Second Appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed. 12. In view of the dismissal of Second Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly.