Delhi District Court
Mehta Engineering Works vs B.S.E.S. Yamuna Power Ltd on 30 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. KADAMBARI AWASTHI :CIVIL JUDGE 02
(CENTRAL),TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
Suit No : 309/14
In the matter of :
Mehta Engineering Works
Through its Proprietor
Sh. R.K. Mehta
6970, Multani Dhanda,
Pahar Ganj, New Delhi. ......Plaintiff.
VERSUS
B.S.E.S. Yamuna Power Ltd.
Shakti Kiran Building,
Karkardooma, Delhi110032. ......Defendant
Date of Institution: 10.03.1997
Date of reserving the judgment: 07.03.2015
Date of Judgment: 30.04.2015
JUDGMENT
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
1. By this judgment I shall decide the suit for Permanent Injunction.
Page 1 of 32
2. It is submitted that the plaintiff is a proprietorship firm and Mr. R.K. Mehta is the proprietor of the plaintiff firm who has signed and verified the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff.
3. It is stated that the plaintiff is doing the business of fabricating the steel works at the premises No. 6970, Multani Dhanda, Pahar Ganj, Delhi. It is pertinent to mention that earlier the father of the proprietor of the plaintiff firm was doing the said business and later on the same was inherited by the proprietor of the plaintiff firm.
4. It is further stated that earlier the plaintiff was having the load of electricity as 1 KW of IP through K. No. PG 005 4811333 and apart from that the plaintiff firm was having a IL connection through K. No. PG 005 0466569 of 0.25 KW in the said premises for the said business.
5. It is further submitted that while the defendants issued a scheme for declaring the enhanced load, the plaintiff firm accordingly declared the enhanced load through Receipt No. 013388 dated 07.07.1995 deposited a sum of Rs. 15,900.00 with the defendant details of which are given hereunder as per the Receipt dated 07.07.1995 : Rs.14,300.00 (47605) Page 2 of 32 Rs. 1,500.00 (48100) Rs. 100.00 (67113)
6. It is stated that on 30.10.1995 the defendant officials made the inspection of the plaintiff premises and according to the Inspection Report dated 30.10.1995 the following connected loads were found by them : Welding Set 5 KVA x 2 Nos.
Rolling M/c. 5 HP x 1 No.
Grinder 1 HP
Drill M/c. 1 HP X 1 no.
7. It is further stated that as per the aforesaid report the shunt capacitor of 12 KVAR Asian made and Serial No.AL/06/F4 & 6 KVAR Asian Make Serial No. AF/127 D/14 was found installed there and the same was also found connected with the DESU Mains in working order. It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of the inspection all the seals of the meters P/P & S/P Meters were found intact and meters were existing on wooden board.
8. It is further stated that even thereafter the plaintiff firm was Page 3 of 32 receiving the bill as per the consumption and paying the same regularly to the defendant which is evident from the bills enclosed in the list of documents.
9. It is further stated that on 29.06.1996 again some of the defendant officials visited the premises of the plaintiff firm and demanded some illegal gratification and on refusal of the same the said officials forced the proprietor of the plaintiff firm to sign some printed form. It is also submitted that later on when the proprietor of the plaintiff visited the office of the defendants and asked for the copy of the paper signed by him, the concerned official gave him a photo state of a paper in the form of record of inspection bearing no. 5838 (which was not filed in the presence of the plaintiff) wherein it has been alleged that some seals are broken and some of the seals are intact.
10. It is further stated that the defendants did not issue any notice of the aforesaid facts and straightway issued the Notice bearing No. O/X/Enf.II/9596/PHG4040/874 dated 25.10.1996 through Registered Post threatening thereby that a case of theft will be registered against the plaintiff firm on the ground that the recorded consumption is low and not in consonance with the consumption on the connected load basis. Page 4 of 32
11. It is further stated that the plaintiff had replied the said notice through his letter dated 31.10.1996 which was duly received by the defendant officials on the said date stating therein the deficiencies in the notice given by the defendant. It is further stated that while the plaintiff visited the office of the defendant, the defendant officials forced the plaintiff under the threat of registering FIR of theft to sign the paper on their dictated terms wherein they had written that any dues as raised by the defendant will be paid by the plaintiff.
12. It is further stated that though the plaintiff was paying the bills as and when raised by the defendant, however, the plaintiff was surprised to receive a hand written bill payable by 31.12.1996 for a sum of Rs. 1,02,732.80.
13. It is further stated that mere perusal of the bill payable dated 31.12.1996 shall reveal that the defendant has charged the bill on the basis of theft w.e.f. 30.06.1995, though there was no theft, which was not even illegal but contrary to the law and facts both of the present case. It is also stated that the Inspection Report dated 30.10.1995 carried out by the defendant officials, the seals of the Meters in question were found intact, then how could it be possible to charge from the plaintiff on account of theft Page 5 of 32 w.e.f. 30.06.1995.
14. It is stated that the defendant officials charged a sum of Rs. 15,900/ from the plaintiff for enhancement of the load. However, till date it was not informed by the defendant officials that how much load was sanctioned. It is stated that the defendant officials after depositing the amount by the plaintiff for the enhanced load on 07.07.1995, came in December, 1995 to the plaintiff premises and removed one S/P Meter and connected the entire load on one meter. It is also stated that plaintiff is unaware that how the defendant officials dealt with the said meter to which they had connected the entire load and got a paper signed from the proprietor of the plaintiff firm. It is also stated that the defendants at that time did not issue any letter at the spot with regard to the genuineness of the meter.
15. It is stated that the plaintiff is not aware of the fact as to whether the defendant officials have removed which of the meter and even then did not give confirmation with regard to the genuineness of the meter removed by them.
16. It is stated that the impugned bill payable by 31.12.1996 raised Page 6 of 32 by the defendant officials was illegal, unjustified and uncalled for and is liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court on the reasons mentioned herein above as the same has not been raised on the true and correct facts and the same is the result of the enimical attitude of the defendant officials to whom the plaintiff did not pay the illegal gratification demanded by them.
17. It is further stated that the plaintiff had left with no option at that time but to file a Civil Suit for Permanent Injunction against the defendant bearing Suit No. 9/1997 which is pending before Ms. Kamini Lau, Civil Judge, Delhi. It is stated that the said court granted the stay of disconnection of the electricity meter in question without giving prior notice as per law.
18. It is further stated that on 05.03.1997 the plaintiff had received a bill of January, 1997 payable on 11.03.1997 along with a notice dated 03.03.1997 wherein it has been alleged that if the amount of bill is not paid within seven days, then the electricity shall be disconnected forthwith.
19. It is further stated that the impugned bill issued by the defendant is itself illegal, unjustified and uncalled for and therefore, the defendant has no right to disconnect the electricity of the plaintiff. Page 7 of 32
20. It is further stated that the defendant has no where stated in the impugned bill that from which period the impugned bill pertains. It is also stated that mere perusal of the impugned bill shall reveal that the current demands of the electricity bill is only Rs. 3616.90, however the defendant has failed to state as to from where and on which account the credit adjustment of Rs. 1,08,805.94 has been drawn and particularly when the plaintiff is paying all the bills issued by the defendant month by month. It is also stated that the impugned bill raised by the defendant no where indicates as to how much amount has already been paid by the plaintiff as the plaintiff is paying the electric bills regularly on each and every month.
21. It is further submitted that when the plaintiff has paid the amount for enhancement of the load under the scheme of the Government of India, then it could not be said the sanctioned load is only 1.00 KW. It is further stated that as per the declared load and money deposited by the plaintiff with the defendant under the scheme, it could not be said, that the connected load is more than that of the sanctioned load, as the amount deposited by the plaintiff is for more than 14.00 KW.
22. It is further submitted that the defendant has no right to penalize the plaintiff for the fault of their own officers. It is also stated that Page 8 of 32 as and when the meter in question was stopped, the plaintiff informed and requested the defendant's officials with this regard which is evident from the letter dated 14.10.1996 and 03.12.1996, however till date neither the meter was repaired nor replaced by the concerned officials.
23. It is further submitted that earlier the defendant's officials tried to make a case of theft and accordingly sent the bill in December, 1996 payable by 31.12.1996 which is impugned before Ms. Kamil Lau, Civil Judge, Delhi and the said court stayed the operation of the said bill and now the present bill is being sent by the defendant's officials on the basis of the connected load being the excessive to the load sanctioned by way of suppressing the material facts that the declared load of the plaintiff under the policy of the Government of India is more than the connected load and for which the required charges have already been deposited by the plaintiff. It is also stated that when the plaintiff has declared his load and paid the necessary charges, then it will be deemed that the authorities has sanctioned the said declared load irrespective of the facts that whether the defendant's official issued or not issued the relevant letter with this regard.
24. It is further submitted that the plaintiff shall suffer irreparable loss and injury if the defendants are not restrained by this Court from Page 9 of 32 disconnecting the electric connection of the plaintiff firm on the basis of the impugned bill payable by 11.03.1997.
25. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has no other alternative efficacious remedy except to approach this Court by way of filing the present suit.
26. It is further submitted that the cause of action has occurred in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant to file the present suit on the date of installation of the electric connection by the defendant officials and thereafter on each and every month as and when the bills were raised and on 20.12.1996 the defendant officials raised the impugned bill payable by 31.12.1996 for a sum of Rs. 1,02,732.80 and further accrued on 05.03.1997 when the defendant's officials gave the bill payable by 11.03.1997 along with notice of disconnection and the same is still existing as the threat extended by the defendant officials in the said bill is not yet withdrawn.
27. It is further submitted that the value of the suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction is assessed Rs.130.00 on which required court fees has been paid.
Page 10 of 32
28. It is further submitted that this court has got territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present suit as the parties to the suit reside and work for gain in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Prayer is made accordingly for passing a decree of Permanent Injunction along with cost of the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
29. In the written statements defendant has contended that the plaintiff has not valued the suit properly as the plaintiff has valued the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction and court fee @ Rs. 130/ and has sought a relief for recovery of Rs. 1,12,067/ on which the advolurem court fee has not been paid, as such the suit is liable to be rejected straightway.
30. It is further submitted that the present suit of the plaintiff is in respect of recovery of Rs. 1,12,067/ but the plaintiff has cleverly drafted the suit as suit for declaration and mandatory injunction, the plaintiff is liable to pay the court fee for the amount mentioned herein above and the suit is also to be valued for that amount.
31. It is further submitted that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as the subject connection has been sanctioned in the name of Sh. Krishan Lal Mehta who has executed the Agreement with the defendant Page 11 of 32 at the time of installation of the connection. The plaintiff has not taken any step for effecting the name change of the connection in his name, as such there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the answering defendant. The plaintiff has no locusstandi to file the present suit and is liable to be dismissed.
32. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has not come to this Court with clean hand in respect of the inspection dated 30.10.1995 wherein the plaintiff/regd. Consumer was found indulging in fraudulent abstruction of energy as such the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed under the provisions of Specific Relief Act.
33. In reply on merits it is stated that contents of para No. 1 to 3 of the plaint are admitted to the extent that an electric connection bearing K. No. 4811333 has been sanctioned and regd. In the name of Shri Krishan Lal Mehta with the sanctioned loan of 1 KW and is installed at the premises of the plaintiff bearing No. 6970, Multani Dhanda, Pahar Ganj, Delhi. It is also denied that Sh. R.K. Mehta, the plaintiff is competent to sign and verify the plaint on behalf of the plaintiff.
34. It is further submitted that para No. 4 of the plaint is matter of Page 12 of 32 record.
35. It is also submitted that the contents of para Nos. 5 & 6 of the plaint are admitted to the extent that the inspection was carried out at the premises of the plaintiff on 30.10.1995 in the presence of the present plaintiff by Enforcement Department. During the said inspection the plaintiff was found a load of 13.722 KW against the sanctioned load of 1 KW. It is submitted that the load of connected machines at site were included in the load report prepared at site. It is denied that all the seals of the polyphase and single phase meter were found intact as alleged in the para under reply. It is also stated that the meter was not checked at the time of the aforesaid inspection as such the question of seals being intact or otherwise does not arise.
36. It is further submitted that the contents of para No. 7 to 9 of the plaint are admitted to the extent that inspection was carried out at the premises of the plaintiff by the officials of the MTD department for checking the seals position of the meter on 29.06.1996. During the said inspection it was observed by the inspecting team that meter box and meter terminal seals were not existing, Lower LHS half seal found missing, one upper LHS seals found broken and the meter disc stopped and the meter also stopped Page 13 of 32 on consumer load. The record of the said inspection was prepared at site in presence of the representative of the plaintiff vide proforma No. 5838/39 dated 29.06.1996.
37. It is further submitted that a show cause notice dated 25.10.1996 was issued and served on the plaintiff and the plaintiff was called for personal hearing on 04.11.1996 and the representation of the plaintiff was considered and not found tenable as such the plaintiff was requested to pay the theft demand failing which the action of disconnection and lodging of FIR shall be taken against the plaintiff. The above said action was taken after approval from the competent authority. It is denied that the inspecting team forced the plaintiff or his representative to sign on some printed form, the same is after thought of the plaintiff and as such not tenable. The said inspection was carried out in the presence of the plaintiff and the MTD report was prepared in his presence. It is denied that the plaintiff was forced to sign any paper as alleged in the para under reply. The plaintiff was bound to pay the theft demand as the same was raised as per the provisions of the tariff and as such the plaintiff gave an undertaking to pay the theft demand in total. This is an afterthough of the plaintiff to allege that he was forced to sign any paper.
Page 14 of 32
38. It is further submitted that the contents of para No. 9 to 12 are wrongly stated hence denied. It is submitted that the said demand notice has been raised as per the provisions of the tariff and the same is fully payable by the plaintiff. It is submitted that the theft demand has been charged against the plaintiff on account of the fact that an inspection was carried out on 20.10.1995 regarding the load connected at site as such the theft demand has been charged from 30.06.1995 to 30.10.1995. However, the MTD report has been prepared on 29.06.1996 as such the plaintiff is liable to pay the said demand.
39. It is submitted that para No. 13 of the plaint are matter of record.
40. It is submitted that para No. 14 of the plaint are not denied.
41. It is submitted that contents of para No. 15 and 16 of the plaint are wrongly stated, hence denied. It is submitted that the plaintiff is iable to pay the theft demand in total.
42. It is further submitted that the contents of para No. 17A to 22 of the plaint have been wrongly stated, hence denied. The details reply has Page 15 of 32 been given in the foregoing paras.
43. It is further submitted that para No. 23 of the plaint have been wrongly stated, hence denied. The plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit.
44. It is further submitted that the contents of para No. 24 of the plaint are wrongly stated, hence denied. The suit has been under valued and the plaintiff has not paid the requisite court fee.
45. It is further submitted that the contents of para No. 25 of the plaint needs no reply being legal.
46. It is prayed that the suit of the plaintiff may kindly be dismissed with exemplary costs.
47. In replication the plaintiff denied the allegations made in the written statement and reiterated the contents & assertions made in the plaint.
48. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were Page 16 of 32 framed by my Ld. Predecessor on 20.10.2000 :
1. Whether suit has or has not been valued properly for the purpose of court fees ? OPP
2. Whether plaintiff has no locusstandi to file the present suit ? OPP
3. Whether plaintiff was found having connected load of 13.722 KW against the sanctioned load of 1 KW ? OPD
4. Whether seals of the polyphase meter were not found OK and intact ? OPD
5. Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration, as prayed for ? OPP
6. Relief.
49. In support of its case Sh. Raj Kumar Mehta, proprietor of the plaintiffs examined himself as PW1. He deposed that he was having the business of Manufacturing and fabrications of Grills, Gates, Windows and Rolling Shutters. He further stated that earlier the above said property was having two meters i.e. for IP of one KW and another for IL 25 KW. He further stated that he had deposited a sum of Rs. 15,900/ on 07.07.1995 for enhancement of his load. He had brought the original receipt and the th photocopy of the same is Ex.PW1/1. He stated that on 30 October, 1995 Page 17 of 32 the officials of the defendant of Enforcement Branch visited the premises and inspected the same. The inspection report is Ex.PW1/2. He further deposed that in 1994 he was directed to install the shunt capicitor by the DVB of 12.5 KW each. The original receipt of the same he had brought and the copy of the same is Ex.PW1/3. Ex.PW1/2 contains that shunt capacitor of 12 KVA and 6 KVA are installed in the premises. He further deposed that in October, 1995 the officials of defendant came at the premises and removed the electricity meter of 1 KW and installed the another meter of IP of 1 KW was fixed in the box. As per Ex.PW1/2 the seals of the meter were intact. On 29.06.1996 the MTD Department inspected the premises and the meter and made a report stating therein that one side seal is intact and seal of another side is torn. The inspection report darted 29.06.1996 is Ex.PW1/4. Thereafter, he had received a letter dated 25.10.1996, copy of which is Ex.PW1/5. He deposed that he was paying the bills regularly. He also placed on record copies of some of the paid bills for the relevant period and the same are Ex.PW1/6 to Ex.PW1/18. He further deposed that on 31.12.1996 he received a bill amounting to Rs. 1,02,732/, copy of which is Ex.PW1/19 which was excess. His load was already enhanced by the DVB and he received excess bill. Thereafter, he filed the civil suit in the court of Civil Judge. In the mean time, he received another bill dated 11.03.1997 for a sum of Rs. 1,08,805/ copy of which is Page 18 of 32 Ex.PW1/20. Thereafter, he filed another suit. However, the said suit was transferred in this court. On nonpayment of electricity charges, his electricity was disconnected and he paid a sum of Rs. 1,12,000/. He further deposed that on 14.06.1996 as well as on 03.12.1996 he had given two applications in respect of change of meter as the meter was stopped. The applications are Ex.PW1/21 and Ex.PW1/22. The officials of the defendant did not change the meter on his request. He is having a valid MCD licence for his business, copy of which is Ex.PW1/23. He further deposed that he had brought the original bill dated January, 1997 payable on 11.03.1997 for Rs. 1,12,067/ copy of which is Exs.PW1/20. He had lodged a complaint to DESU dated 03.11.1995 which was duly received on 21.11.1995 along with postal order of Rs. 50/ for checking of meter and replacement of meter. Carbon copy of the same is Ex.PW1/24 and Ex.PW1/25. He further deposed that he filed the amended plaint which bears his signatures at point A and B which is correct. He prayed that his suit may be decreed.
In the crossexamination he stated that he knows all the facts and circumstances of the case as he had signed the plaint. He stated that his main prayer in the plaint is to quash the bill of Rs. 1,12,067/ in respect of connection No. 4811333 which is in the name of the plaintiff. He further Page 19 of 32 stated that initially the connection was in the name of his father Kishan Lal Mehta but later on the the defendant started to send the bill in the name of the plaintiff since 1994 approximately. The license issued by MCD is valid upto 31.03.1996 and was issued for fabrication of steel work which is Ex.PW1/23. Initially there were two connections 1.P & 1L. Later on it was amalgamated into one connection after remaining the I.L connection. The sanctioned load of 1.P connection was 1 KW B Phase. He admitted that an inspection was done on 30.10.1995 in his absence and the copy of the report is Ex.PW1/1 which contains his signatures at point A and B. He put his signatures on the same after coming from Mandir on the same day but at the side of the premises of the factory. He does not know whether the reports were right or wrong. He did not give anything in writing against the reports Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/4. He admitted that welding set, rolling machine, grinder and dril machine were at site. The connection was used for manufacturing of gate, grill, windows and rolling shutters. Shunt capacitor was installed. He does not know if the connected load was 13.722 KW as against the sanctioned loan of 1 KW. He denied the suggestion that he was consuming the electricity after interfering with the seals. He further denied the suggestion that he had removed the seals of the meter box, meter terminals and other seals of the meter. He stated that he attended the personal hearing on 04.11.1996. He made representation Page 20 of 32 to the department at the time of personal hearing. Copy of which is Ex.DW1/DX1 which is also a reply to the show cause notice Ex.PW1/5. He further denied the suggestion that he was consuming electricity fraudulently by tampering the meter and seals and using the excess load than the sanctioned load. He also denied the suggestion that he was liable to make the payment of bill in dispute. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. Thereafter, Ld. counsel for the plaintiff closed plaintiff's evidence.
50. Defendant also led their evidence by examining Sh. N.K. Aggarwal, A.E. Sub Station, NHP, BSES RPL. He deposed that he was working as Superintendent in EnforcementII in the year 1995. He deposed that he carried out an inspection along with Sh. T.R. Bhatia at 6970, Multani Dhanda, Pahar Ganj, Delhi. He further deposed that his role was to check the connection load installed in the premises and to check the irregularities in respect of the electricity connection. He had brought the original record. At the time of inspection the connection in dispute in favour of Sh. K.L. Mehta was found used by M/s Mehta Engg. Works. A load 13.722 KW was found connected against power meter and 1.04 KW to light meter. The load report was prepared in his handwriting and bears his signatures at point A and personal available at site put his signatures at point B. Page 21 of 32 Thereafter, he got checked the meter from MTD which was done on 29.06.1996. On the basis of the inspection dated 29.06.1996 by MTD the power meter was found tampered as such he processed the case. The average under consumption was found to 23Z. U.P.M. for 91 to 93, 175 U.P.M. for 93 to 94, 191 Unit for 94 to 95 and 208 Unit for 9596 against the completed consumption of 2470 UPM on the basis of C. load of 13.722 KW. The report is Ex.DW1/2 and bears his signatures at point A. On the basis of Ex.DW1/2 he issued a Show Cause Notice dated 25.10.1996 to the plaintiff/Registered Consumer for granting personal hearing for 04.11.1996 and bears his signatures at point A. Copy of the same is Ex.PW1/3. Thereafter, the party appeared on 04.11.1996 and agreed to pay the bill. The copy of undertaking is Ex.DW1/4 duly signed by Executive Engineer Sh. D.K. Sharma at point A who granted personal hearing. He claimed to identify his signatures as he had worked under him and seen him signing. Thereafter, a case of FAE was finalized and a letter was issued to the registered consumer for collecting the bill from AFO (D), Pahar Ganj. Copy of the same is Ex.DW1/5 duly signed by Sh. D.K. Sharma. DW1 further claimed to identify his signatures.
In the crossexamination he stated that he had not prepared Ex.DW1/3 and Ex.DW1/4. He had not checked the meter physically on Page 22 of 32 29.06.1996. He had prepared Ex.DW1/1 indicating the load of the premises. On 30.10.1995 there were two meters at the site. One Meter was nondomestic power and another was light. As per bill available at site, the connection was commercial. It was mentioned in the test report that meter for 3 HP Power IP which is even mention in Ex.DW1/1 at point B. The shunt capacitor was also found installed. He did not make enquiry as to since when the shunt capacitor was installed. It is also mentioned in Ex.DW1/1 that seal of meter was intact at point C. He deposed that he was not the member of the raiding party on 29.06.1996 as the same was done by MTD. He does not know that the defendant removed one light meter and put IP meter in box. He could not say as to how much old the meter was. He does not know that the said IP meter was installed in the premises prior to 1984. He does not know whether the load of the premises was sanctioned to 18 HP or not. A question was put to him, Can you tell there was a scheme of DVB for enhancement of the load after deposit of requisite amount as per the required load for which plaintiff had already deposited a sum of Rs.15,900/ on 07.07.1995 for enhancement of load upto 18 HP ? The said question was disallowed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court. He deposed that there was one Mr. Bhatia on 30.10.1995 along with him who was from Enforcement Department. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
Page 23 of 32
51. Thereafter evidence of the defendant was closed on 30.10.2003.
52. I have heard arguments advanced by Ld. counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.
53. Now my issuewise findings are as under : Issue Nos. 1 & 2
1. Whether suit has or has not been valued properly for the purpose of court fees ? OPP
2. Whether plaintiff has no locusstandi to file the present suit ? OPP Since Issue Nos. 1 & 2 both are related to the legal connotation so these issues are taken together. It is the claim of the defendant that the suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee. There is the admission of the plaintiff that earlier he had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant to recover the same of impugned bill of Rs.1,12,067/ from the plaintiff for the month of January, 1997 qua the electricity meter K. No. PG 005 4811333 and disconnected the supply of same on the basis of any such bills including present demand of Rs.1,12,067/. Since the plaintiff did not get interim Page 24 of 32 directions of the court and plaintiff later on amended his suit and included the prayer of declaration and mandatory injunction. Now it is prayed that the impugned period be declared as illegal and mandatory injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendant and its officials etc. to return Rs.1,12,067/ deposited by the plaintiff under protest. It is apparent that the suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fee and the plaintiff has affixed a court fee of Rs. 130/ on the plaint and Rs.1,12,067/ on which advelorum court fee has not been paid as held in catena of case. Secondly, the plaintiff has admitted that the subject connection is in the name of Sh. Krishan Lal Mehta who was the registered consumer of the defendant but the plaintiff has not taken any step for change of name with respect to the subject connection when he started using it. It is contended on behalf of the defendant that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant and plaintiff has no locusstandi to file the present suit. Perusal of the record reveals that the subject connection had been sanctioned in the name of Sh. Krishan Lal Mehta and accordingly, the plaintiff has no loucsstandi to file the present suit as he is not the registered consumer of the defendant. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed in case titled as, "Punit Plastic Industry Vs. Rawat Hosiery" reported in AIR 1985 Delhi 257 in which it was held that if the plaintiff is not registered consumer then he has no right Page 25 of 32 to file the suit. Even a similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Maharashtra State Commission in case of "Keshav Babu Tare Vs. Executive Engineer MSEB" reported in 1(2004)CPJ262(Maharashtra), in which it was held that, "If meter was not in the name of complainant, hence he has no locus to file the complaint" and even this view reported by the Hon'ble National Commission in case of "Ashok Kumar Vs. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & Ors., IV(2003)CPJ57(NC)". From the above deliberations and the material available on record coupled with the admission of the plaintiff, I am of the view that neither the plaintiff has affixed the proper court fee on the plaint/suit nor he has locusstandi to file the present suit. Thus both these issues are decided accordingly. 54. Issue Nos. 3 & 4
3. Whether plaintiff was found having connected load of 13.722 KW against the sanctioned load of 1 KW ? OPD
4. Whether seals of the polyphase meter were not found OK and intact ? OPD Needless to say that the onus to prove both these issues was cast upon the defendant. It is the claim of the plaintiff that on 30.10.1995 defendant officials made inspection of the plaintiff's premises and gave their inspection report dated 30.10.1995 and it is further reflected in the Inspection Report that all the seals of the meter and P/P and S/P meters Page 26 of 32 were found intact and the meters were existing on the wooden board. The said inspection was conducted in the presence of the plaintiff by Enforcement Department and during the said inspection the defendant found a load of 13.722 KW against the sanctioned load of 1 KW. Though in the report it is reflected that the status of the meter was not checked and it was later on checked on 29.06.1996 wherein it was observed that the mater box and meter terminal seals were not existing, lower HS half seal found missing, one upper LHS seal found broken and the meter disc stopped and meter also found stopped on consumer load. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 25.10.1996 was served upon the plaintiff and he was requested to attend the personal hearing on 04.11.1996 and the case of theft was booked against the plaintiff.
Witness PW1 Sh. R.K. Mehta, proprietor of the plaintiff firm appeared in the witness box and stated that he is running the business of manufacturing and fabrication of grills, gates, windows and rolling shutters and also claimed that he had applied on 07.07.1995 for enhancement of load. During the course of crossexamination he stated that he has sought the relief to quash the bill of Rs.1,12,067/ which is in the name of the plaintiff and the connection was sanctioned in the name of his father Sh. Krishan Lal Mehta. It is also revealed that the license issued by the MCD Page 27 of 32 in favour of the plaintiff and was valid upto 31.03.1996. It is also stated that there were two connections, one was for IP and one was for IL and later on both were amalgamated in one connection. However, the plaintiff failed to prove the fact that the load was enhanced by the defendant. There is no document place on record to show that by amalgamation of both connection the load was enhanced, as claimed by the plaintiff. No explanation has been tendered about the broken seals of meters by the plaintiff. On the other hand DW1 Sh. N.K. Aggarwal who appeared in the witness box on behalf of the defendant deposed that he was working as Superintendent in EnforcementII and he was member of the joint team who inspected the site. He also relied upon the inspection report wherein it was found that the connected load was found 13.722 KW against the sanctioned load of 1 KW and the load report has been prepared in his handwriting. He also stated that meter status was checked on 29.06.1996 by MTD wherein the meter was found tampered. He also claimed to have proceeded with the case and compared the consumption pattern and he also issued a show cause notice to the plaintiff giving undertaking to pay the bill which is Ex.DW1/4. Another witness Sh. G.K. Kaushal also appeared as defendant witness to prove MTD report and deposed that in the year 1996 he was working as Inspector MTD with the erstwhile DVB and he was one of the members of the inspection team who conducted the Page 28 of 32 inspection on 29.06.1996 in the premises of the plaintiff. The inspection was carried out in the presence of the plaintiff who associated the inspection team and during the course of inspection it was found that two numbers RHS half seals found intact and OK and one number upper left hand side half seal found broken and meter found stopped on consumer load as well as external heating load of 3 KW may cause probability of tampering in the meter and accordingly, the MTD report was prepared at site in the present of the representative of the plaintiff and the same is Ex.DW2/1. It is to be noted that despite opportunity given no cross examination of this witness has taken place and accordingly his testimony has remained unchallenged and unrebutted throughout.
From the material on record, it is clear that proper and valid inspection has been conducted on 30.10.1995 anmd 29.06.1996 by the Govt. Officers of the erstwhile DVB and certain irregularities/tamperings were found at site and accordingly, F.A.E. Bill has been raised and consumer/plaintiff is liable to make the payment of the same. The testimony of DW2 proved that certain irregularities were found in the meter of the plaintiff. The contention of the plaintiff that the Inspection Report was not properly prepared in this respect, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down in the case,"Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. Vs. Ashwani Page 29 of 32 Kumar" that the report prepared by the officers of the Electricity Board is an act done in discharge of their duties and could not be straightway reflected or disbelieved unless and untill, there was definite and cogent material on record to arrive at such a finding. The inspection report is a document prepared in exercise of its official duty by the officers of the corporation. Once an is done in accordance with the law, the presumption in favour of such act or document and not against the same, thus, there was specific onus on the consumer to rebut by leading proper and cogent evidence that the report prepared by the officers was not correct.
Accordingly, in the light of above cited judicial precedent and deliberations I have no hesitation in holding that the plaintiff's meter was found having connected load of 13.277 against the sanctioned load of 1 KW and the seal of the polyphase meter was found tampered. Hence, both these issues are decided accordingly.
55. Issue No. 5
5. Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration, as prayed for ? OPP It is the claim of the plaintiff that he has sought enhancement of load by a scheme run by the defendant and also deposited Rs.15,000/ Page 30 of 32 with the defendant to enhance the load and accordingly, the defendant had removed the 1L meter from the premises of the plaintiff and IP meter No. 411333 was removed from the original place and put in the power supply by the defendant itself. However, at that time none of the MTD team came at the spot and gave the report about the fitness of the meter. It is also claimed by the plaintiff that defendant officials asked for illegal gratification and on refusal of the same by the plaintiff the defendant officials forced the proprietor of the plaintiff firm to sign some printed form and it is later revealed that the plaintiff visited the office of the defendants and asked for the copy of the paper signed by him, the concerned official gave him a photo state of a paper in the form of record of inspection bearing No. 5838 which was not filed allegedly in the presence of the plaintiff. There is no ocular or documentary evidence put forth by the plaintiff to prove these baseless assertions made by him in the plaint and prove that the bill raised by the defendant was illegal and void. The nature and designation of the employee asking for illegal gratification has not been disclosed in the entire plaint.
However, the defendant had duly prove their case wherein it is established that the meter of the plaintiff was having connected with the load of 13.722 KW against the sanctioned load of 1 KW and the seal of Page 31 of 32 polyphase was not found intact and the plaintiff was indulged in the activity of extracting excess electricity from the connected load and it is observed in the catena of judgements that if the connected load is more than sanctioned load, no prior opportunity of hearing is required before disconnection of supply. It is also clear that using of excess electricity on the sanctioned load amounts to theft of electricity and disconnection of supply on this ground without notice is illegal.
I have no hesitation in holding that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his case and accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. Issue is decided accordingly.
56. Relief.
The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No order as to cost. Decreesheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court (Kadambari Awasthi)
Today : 30.04.2015 Civil Judge 02 (Central),
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Page 32 of 32