The inflated industrial bill and the pending disconnection notice

Multiplying factor. For a meter with CTs and no PTs, M.F. = CT ratio × PT ratio = (40 ÷ 5) × 1 = 8. The bill has used 40, which is the CT primary rating used as if the secondary were 1 A - a master-data error, not a metering error.

Correct consumption: 240 dial units × 8 = 1,920 units, not 9,600. The billed figure is exactly 240 × 40, that is, five times the correct value.

The consumer's argument. It is not actually sound. At 25 kW for the whole month the maximum possible energy is about 25 × 744 = 18,600 units, and at the recorded 620 running hours the ceiling is 25 × 620 = 15,500 units. So 9,600 units is physically possible under the sanctioned load - indeed it averages 15.5 kW over 620 hours, below the recorded 18 kW maximum demand. The consumer has reached the right conclusion from a wrong premise.

The correct consumption of 1,920 units averages about 3.1 kW over 620 hours, which is entirely consistent with a small LT unit. The case therefore rests on the multiplying factor alone; the plausibility argument should be noted but not relied upon, because it would not stand if the figures were examined.

1. Hold the disconnection notice. The amount is disputed on a documented ground (M.F. of 40 against a CT ratio of 40/5). Disconnecting for a disputed amount before verification would be indefensible.
2. Verify the primary facts from the CT nameplate, the meter nameplate and the installation test report - CT ratio 40/5, no PT, meter constant - and record the readings on the file.
3. Correct the meter master data through a documented change request, keeping a before/after screen record; otherwise every future bill will repeat the error.
4. Check earlier bills for the same consumer since the meter installation or the last master-data update. The same error may have been applied for several months, which would mean either arrears or a refund, and that changes the net position.
5. Recompute October on 1,920 units and prepare a revision note with the old bill, new bill and the difference.
6. Put up the note for approval by the authority competent to revise bills, and issue a written reply to the consumer with the revised bill and a fresh due date.

Sequence matters because correcting the master data before computing avoids a second wrong bill, and checking past months before replying avoids issuing a corrected bill that has to be corrected again.

Approval. The revision must be approved by the authority empowered under the delegation of powers to revise or withdraw a bill - typically the Assistant Engineer or Deputy Engineer of the section, not the billing clerk. The clerk's role is to verify, compute and put up the case; the power to reduce a billed demand is a financial power that has been delegated upward precisely because a reduction is a loss of revenue to the company.

Records to be updated:

• the consumer's ledger, showing the original bill, the credit note/revision and the net amount;
• the bill adjustment register, with a reason code such as 'M.F. error - meter master';
• the meter master change log, with the old and new M.F., the date and the approving officer;
• the consumer's file, with the consumer's representation, the verification report, the approval and the reply letter;
• the disconnection register, showing that the notice was withheld and why.

Why not simply amend. An unapproved amendment leaves no audit trail, cannot be defended if the consumer later disputes the revised figure, and would hide the master-data defect that affects every consumer on that feeder. A wrong figure that is quietly corrected is still an unexplained adjustment; a wrong figure corrected through a recorded approval is a controlled correction.