Delhi District Court
Manmohan Singh Bedi vs . Ndpl on 31 October, 2014
Manmohan Singh Bedi Vs. NDPL
IN THE COURT OF SH. KISHOR KUMAR : CIVIL JUDGE12
(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SUIT NO : 864/14
In the matter of :
Unique ID Number : 02401C0492372013
Sh. Manmohan Singh Bedi
S/o Late Sh. Rajinder Singh Bedi,
Shop No.20, Ground Floor, Ashoka Market,
Near Tis Hazari, Delhi110054. ...PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
North Delhi Power Ltd.
N.D.P.L. House, Hudson Lines,
Kingsway Camp, Delhi110009.
Through its C.E.O. ...DEFENDANT
Date of institution : 21.10.2011
Date of judgment : 31.10.2014
SUIT FOR DECLARATION, MANDATORY AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction against defendant company contending inter alia on the facts that he is consumer of CS No.864/14 Pg 1 of 10 Manmohan Singh Bedi Vs. NDPL electricity K.No.31204141421 installed at his shop bearing no.20, Ashoka Market, Near Mortuary, Tis Hazari, Delhi. This is a commercial connection. Plaintiff had been making regular payments of the bills. However, he received a bill dated 29.08.2011 for the period from 19.06.2011 to 09.08.2011 for a sum of Rs.71,220/. On this plaintiff approached the defendant for clarifications. The defendant promised that the bill be revised. But it was not done but electricity was disconnected on 29.09.2011. Due to this plaintiff suffered losses in his business. Under protest plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs.41,000/ and the supply was restored but still the defendant company is insisting for payment of complete bill amount of Rs.71,220/ failing which they have threatened to disconnect the electricity. Hence, the present suit filed by the plaintiff to declare the impugned bill as null and void, to direct the defendant company to revise the bill and also to restrain it from CS No.864/14 Pg 2 of 10 Manmohan Singh Bedi Vs. NDPL disconnecting the electricity supply through the connection in question.
2. Defendant filed written statement submitting that the meter of the plaintiff was burnt and it was replaced on 12.05.2010. Therefore, the assessment was done for the period of 6 months on account of burnt meter and an amount of Rs. 32,172/ was raised upon the plaintiff. Due to excess load, the meter was again burnt and was replaced on 02.06.2010. Again assessment was done and a bill of Rs.3,714/ was raised upon the plaintiff. As per defendant on account of burnt meter Rs.35,800.86/ was payable by the plaintiff plus Rs.33,900/ was payable by the plaintiff against regular consumption. On the basis of these figures including LPSE charges, bill of Rs.71,225/ was raised upon the plaintiff. Defendant admitted that plaintiff made payment of Rs. 41,000/ towards this bill. Rest of the case of plaintiff is denied being wrong and incorrect.
CS No.864/14 Pg 3 of 10 Manmohan Singh Bedi Vs. NDPL
3. Plaintiff filed replication denying the contents of the written statement and reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of the plaint.
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues have been framed on dated 17.05.2012:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration, as prayed for? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP.
4. Relief.
5. Plaintiff to prove his case examined his special power of attorney Sh. Ramesh Kumar who tendered affidavit in evidence Ex.PW1/A bearing his signatures at point A and B. He has relied upon the documents i.e the complaint dated CS No.864/14 Pg 4 of 10 Manmohan Singh Bedi Vs. NDPL 28.08.2011 Ex.PW1/1, special power of attorney Ex.PW1/4, legal notice MarkA, bill dated 13.01.2011 Ex.PW1/7, another bill dated 29.08.2011 is Ex.PW1/6, the acknowledgment slip issued by the defendant with notification date 05.09.2011 is Ex.PW1/3, and the copy of duplicate bill dated 03.10.2011 is Ex.PW1/5.
6. On the other hand, defendant company examined Sh. Bhori Lal Kala head of group/R & C, District Civil Lines DW1 whose affidavit is Ex.DW1/A. He has relied upon the following documents:
i) Ex.DW1/1 NDPL account overseas.
ii) Ex.DW1/2 (running page 1 & 2) consumer information sheet/bill revision.
iii)Ex.DW1/3 revision/calculation sheet.
iv)Ex.DW1/4 (running page 1 to 3) bill revision/ calculation sheet.
v) Ex.DW1/5 bill revision/calculation sheet.
CS No.864/14 Pg 5 of 10 Manmohan Singh Bedi Vs. NDPL
vi)Ex.DW1/6 statement of accounts.
7. I have heard ld. counsel for plaintiff, ld. Counsel for defendant and have carefully gone through the record. My Issue wise findings are as follows.
ISSUES NO. 1, 2 and 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration, as prayed for? OPP Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP.
8. All these issues are taken up together as they are interconnected and interlinked. Onus to prove these issues was on the plaintiff. Plaintiff is seeking the decree of declaration to declare the bill for amount of Rs.71,220/ as null and void. In the written statement the defendants have taken specific objection that the suit is bad for non payment of court fees on the relief of declaration.
9. During the course of final arguments ld. Counsel for CS No.864/14 Pg 6 of 10 Manmohan Singh Bedi Vs. NDPL defendant also argued on this aspect that suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction. I find substance in the objection and argument of ld. counsel for the defendant that the suit is not properly valued. Though the plaintiff has mentioned in words the relief of declaration but he has not paid the proper court fees on this relief on amount of Rs.71,200/.
10.In Sarjiwan Singh Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board110 (2004) DLT633 the court held that: "where a bill has been raised by the electricity department which is prima facie legal, a declaration must be prayed for to the effect that the bill is incorrect or illegal and also to pay the proper court fees on the impugned bill amount.
11.Plaintiff has valued the suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction at Rs.200/ for the relief of declaration. This is not proper valuation.
12.The case of the plaintiff also fails in view of the celebrated CS No.864/14 Pg 7 of 10 Manmohan Singh Bedi Vs. NDPL judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that: "in place of principal, attorney cannot depose. Under certain circumstances an attorney can depose on behalf of the principal, if such attorney in person had dealt with the affairs of the case in person."
13.In the present case PW1 Ramesh Kumar is the special power of attorney of the plaintiff.
14.PW1 has been cross examined by ld. Counsel for defendant. PW1 was not even knew the sanctioned load of the connection. PW1 has not been the person who had dealt with the defendant in person prior to filing of the present suit for rectification of the impugned bill or it is not the case of PW1 that it is he who had deposited Rs.41,000/ with the defendant. PW1 himself is running the business of selling Bananas in the suit shop. In the entire affidavit in evidence, PW1 has not assigned any reason as to why the plaintiff is CS No.864/14 Pg 8 of 10 Manmohan Singh Bedi Vs. NDPL not able to depose in person.
15.Furthermore, ld. Counsel for plaintiff has not cross examined DW1 in any effective manner to demolish the case of defendant that twice the electricity meter installed at the suit premises was burnt because of excess load put on it by the plaintiff. Not only this, the documents which have been relied upon by DW1, have not been controverted by the plaintiff by way of cross examination. Plaintiff in the pleadings himself admitted that once the electricity meter was burnt and new meter was installed. Initially in the plaint, plaintiff did not allege this fact in the plaint. It was only during the cross examination of PW1 that he admitted that the meter was once burnt out. Admittedly, the sanctioned load on the meter in question is 10 KW for commercial purpose. PW1 is also doing his business from the suit premises. It means that through one connection plaintiff as well as PW1 have been doing their business activities which CS No.864/14 Pg 9 of 10 Manmohan Singh Bedi Vs. NDPL are commercial in nature.
16.Under these circumstances, this court is of the opinion that plaintiff has miserably failed to prove as to how the bill in question is incorrect. In view of the law mentioned herein above also, suit of the plaintiff fails. These issues are accordingly decided against the plaintiff. RELIEF
17.In view of my discussion herein above, present suit is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court Kishor Kumar on 31.10.2014 CJ12/Central/THC CS No.864/14 Pg 10 of 10