Delhi District Court
Smt. Savitri Devi vs North Delhi Power Ltd. & Anr on 29 May, 2010
Civil Suit No.151/10
Smt. Savitri Devi Vs North Delhi Power Ltd. & Anr
IN THE COURT OF SH MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE CUM RENT CONTROLLER (NORTH) DELHI
Civil Suit No.151/10
Smt. Savitri Devi ........Plaintiff.
Vs
North Delhi Power Ltd. & Anr. ........ Defendants.
ORDER
1. By way of present order I shall conscientiously decide an application u/o XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC of the plaintiff/applicant thereby seeking an adinterim injunction restraining the defendants its agents, servants and employees etc. from recovering the impugned bill of the amount of Rs.1,35,501/ with due date of payment as 10.09.2006 vide K. No. 35300549932Y, Meter No. DVB/2002/072938, installed at premises No. A312, Ground Floor, Shasti Nagar, Delhi110032 and also from disconnecting the electricity supply of the connection bearing K.No. 35300549932, in the name of the plaintiff installed at premise4s No.A312, Ground Floor, Shastri Nagar, Delhi110032 till the final disposal of the instant suit .
1 Civil Suit No.151/10
Smt. Savitri Devi Vs North Delhi Power Ltd. & Anr
2. Eschewing prolix details to the pleadings crystallizing the same the plaintiff is stated to be the owner of the property bearing No. A 312, Ground Floor, Shasti Nagar, Delhi32 (Hereinafter called the suit property) and the plaintiff has got an electricity connection vide K. N.35300549932 Y, in the suit property for industrial purpose. The suit of the plaintiff is filed by her special attorney Sh Bengali Babu. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has been regularly paying the electricity bill against consumption and on 31.08.2006, an inspection was conducted by the officials of defendant pursuant to which impugned bill No. N9300009544 with due date of payment as 10.09.2006 for the amount of Rs.1,35,501/ was raised by the officials of the defendant against the plaintiff on the ground that a load of 8.247KW was found connected against a sanctioned load of 5 KW for nondomestic purpose and further that Poly Carbonate Body of the Meter No. DVB/202/072938 was found refixed (dishonest abstraction of the Energy and meter terminal seal found missing. It is further the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff is not liable to pay the aforesaid impugned bill as the plaintiff did not draw the extra load of 8.247 KW instead of sanctioned load of 5 KWs and there was no ground for misuse/unauthorized use of electricity by the plaintiff for nondomestic 2 Civil Suit No.151/10 Smt. Savitri Devi Vs North Delhi Power Ltd. & Anr purpose and meter in question was taken for use of the electricity as Industrial Power and the alleged inspection dated 31.08.2006 was done by the defendant No.2 as a counter blast to the civil suit No. 515/2006 which is pending for disposal before the court of law in which a contempt proceeding is also stated to be pending. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the officials of NDPL are illegally insisting the plaintiff to pay the impugned bill and they have sent letter dated 19.05.2009 to the plaintiff for out of court settlement regarding the impugned bill despite the fact that the plaintiff is not liable to play the impugned bill and the plaintiff has also given reply dated 19.05.2009 to the said letter and now the officials of defendant NDPL are frequently extending threats to plaintiff regarding disconnection of the electricity in case of non payment. It is further the case of the plaintiff that on 28.05.2009 the officials of defendant visited the residence of the plaintiff for disconnecting the electricity connection on account of nonpayment of impugned bill and the matter was averted with the intervention of respectable persons of the locality. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant on 31.08.2006 when the officials of the NDPL inspected the premises of the plaintiff in illegal manner and further arose 3 Civil Suit No.151/10 Smt. Savitri Devi Vs North Delhi Power Ltd. & Anr on 01.08.2007 when speaking order was passed by the defendant No.2 to deposit the impugned bill and the same is still continuing. Hence, there is apprehension that the electricity connection of the plaintiff may be disconnected at any time by the officials of the defendant on account of nonpayment of impugned bill and the action of the defendants are highly illegal unwarranted, unjustified and against th principal of natural justice and said impugned bill is liable to be declared as null and void, abinitio and there is no other efficacious remedy except to the file present suit. Alongwith the suit plaintiff filed the instant application under order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC under disposal praying for aforesaid relief .
3. The defendants have filed written statement to the suit and reply to the interim application, in which the defendant has denied each and every allegation of plaintiff and has contended that the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and the plaintiff was found indulging in fraudulent abstraction of energy by tampering with the metering equipment of the defendant installed at the premises of the plaintiff. The defendant further contended that the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts. 4 Civil Suit No.151/10
Smt. Savitri Devi Vs North Delhi Power Ltd. & Anr On merits, It is admitted by the plaintiff that the connection bearing K. No.35300549932 has been sanctioned in the name of the plaintiff with sanctioned load of 5.00 KW for industrial purpose and installed at the subject premises and an inspection was conducted by the joint inspection team of the defendant on 31.08.2006 against K. No. 35300549932 in the presence of the representative of the plaintiff who associated to joint team throughout the inspection proceeding by with malafide, she refused to sign and accept the same and during the course of inspection, the connected load was found as 8.247 KW against the sanctioned load of 5.00 KW as at the time of inspection meter terminal seal was found missing and polycarbonate meter body was found refixed. It is further admitted by the defendant in the written statement that on the basis of inspection dated 31.08.2006, a show cause notice was prepared and delivered to the representative of the consumer whereby the consumer was offered an opportunity of personal hearing on 03.11.2006 whereupon the plaintiff filed an written submission and after considering the submission of the consumer, a detailed speaking order was passed on 17.07.2007 and a copy of the same was sent to plaintiff on 01.08.2007. It is further the case of the defendant that consumption pattern of the plaintiff was studied where 5 Civil Suit No.151/10 Smt. Savitri Devi Vs North Delhi Power Ltd. & Anr average recorded consumption was found 220.74 units per month and average computed consumption was found 1236.30 units per month hence the recorded consumption is not uniform which is much less than the computed consumption i.e. only 17.85% of the average computed computation while it should not be less than 75% as per DERC Guidelines, hence DAE has been established against the plaintiff and she is liable to pay the bill of Rs.1,35,501/ which has been raised as per guidelines of DERC. It is contended by the defendant in the written statement that a second inspection was carried out by the enforcement department of NDPL on 17.11.2008 in the presence of plaintiff but she refused to sign the inspection report and at that time the connected load was found 8.780 KW against the sanctioned load of 4.62 KW, meter box seals were found missing, meter terminal seal was found missing, both seals of the meter were found intact and removed and meter segregated and all wires found tin melted position. It is further the case of the defendant that putting of excess load amounts to theft of electricity, as plaintiff has no right to use the excess load as per the agreement. The defendant has contended that not only the application but the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs. 6 Civil Suit No.151/10
Smt. Savitri Devi Vs North Delhi Power Ltd. & Anr
4. I have heard the ld counsels for the parties and perused the record. While the plaintiff has claimed that the inspection dated 31.08.06 is a counter blast to the suit of the plaintiff already pending before the court of law bearing Suit no 515/06/00 titled Savitri Devi Vs NDPL pending before this court only and the inspection has not been carried out in accordance with law and false case of DAE has been made. Ld counsel for plaintiff Kumar Vikram during the course of arguments has stated that he has even approached the defendant for enhancement of sanctioned load by approaching the defendant many a times. Ld counsel for defendant Sh Rai on the other hand states that the inspection dated 31.08.06 was carried out in accordance with law which is clear from the inspection report on performa No.120920 wherein the meter terminal seals of the plaintiff was found missing and the poly carbonate meter body was found refixed, besides the total connected load was found to be 8.7 KW against the sanctioned load of 5 KW . Ld counsel for defendant Sh Rai has stated that even consumption pattern of plaintiff was examined and studied and plaintiff was granted due opportunity be giving show cause notice dated 31.08.06 and speaking order dated 01.08.07 was also passed after considering the representation of the plaintiff made during the personal 7 Civil Suit No.151/10 Smt. Savitri Devi Vs North Delhi Power Ltd. & Anr hearing which the plaintiff stated to have personally attended. Since the plaintiff has challenged the impugned bill on various grounds and has even shown a prima facie facts that there has been past litigations between the parties. Plaintiff has been able to satisfy the court on the first ground of trinity principle. In so far as the question of balance of convenience is concerned the plaintiff has been using the electricity since long and has been stated to be paying regular bills as per consumption. Whether such consumption pattern resulted into a DAE or not is the question of trial but at this stage plaintiff needs to be protected . However since a show cause notice and speaking order alongwith inspection report is already on record , the court is of the considered opinion that the interest of justice would be met if the plaintiff is directed to pay 50% of the impugned demand in four installments . First installment shall be paid within 10 days from today and the receipt thereof be filed on record failing which the interim order shall stand vacated . The plaintiff shall be entitled to an adjustment in respect of bills already paid. Subject to aforesaid defendants are restrained from disconnecting the electricity supply in respect of K. No. 35300549932Y in the name of the plaintiff installed at premises No. A 312,Ground Floor,Shastri Nagar, Delhi110032 till the disposal of the suit. 8 Civil Suit No.151/10
Smt. Savitri Devi Vs North Delhi Power Ltd. & Anr Nothing expressed herein shall tantamount to the expression of opinion of the merits of the case.
Order be given dasti as per Delhi High Court Rules .
Ordered accordingly ,
(MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA)
DATED 29.05.2010 SCJ/RC/(NORTH/DELHI.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT.
9
Civil Suit No.151/10
Smt. Savitri Devi Vs North Delhi Power Ltd. & Anr
10