Delhi District Court
Himanshu Joshi And Anr vs Bses Rajdhani Power Limited And Anr on 30 May, 2025
THE COURT OF SH. ANKIT MITTAL: CIVIL JUDGE-01:
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT: DWARKA COURT: NEW DELHI
Unique case ID No: 927/20
CNR NO. DLSW030028742020
IN THE MATTER OF :
1.Sh. Himanshu Joshi S/o Sh. Madan Mohan Joshi R/o Flat no.141, 3rd Floor, Pocket-1, Sector-11, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075.
2. Sh. Pawan Kumar, S/o Sh. Jeebach Mehto, R/o C-304, KM Apartment, Plot No.12, Sector-12, Dwarka New Delhi-110075 ...Plaintiffs Versus BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD.
BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place,
New Delhi-110019
....Defendant
Date of filing : 21.11.2020
Date of Institution : 25.11.2020
Date of pronouncing judgment : 30.05.2025
SUIT FOR DECLARATION, PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND RECOVERY OF Rs.37,100/- WITH INTEREST.
JUDGMENT.
By this judgment this Court shall dispose off a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of Rs.37,100/- filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant. Before adjudicating upon the issues framed in the present suit, it necessary to dwell upon the plethora of pleadings in Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT MITTAL MITTAL Date:
2025.05.30 17:22:28 +0530 Civil Suit No. 927/20 Judgment dt. 30.05.2025 Page no. 1 of 36 the present suit.
1. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff No.2 owner of DDA SFS Flat no.141, Sector-11, Pocket-1, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075. The premises was having electricity connection vide new CA No. 103464474 with Meter No. 40427649 held in the name of the original allottee Sh.
Vikram Kakkar with sanctioned load of 3 KW. The plaintiff no.2 became owner of the flat having being purchased the same from its previous owner vide Sale Deed dated 21.10.2016.
2. It is further averred in the plaint that the plaintiff no.1 is the tenant in the above mentioned flat and residing with his family and using the electricity in the flat. It is further submitted that in the society flats, the electricity meters are installed on the ground floor at a common place. The plaintiffs are paying the electricity bills regularly as and when raised by the defendants.
3. It is further averred in the plaint that on 20.09.2019, the electricity of the flat was off for more than one hour. The plaintiff no.1 came down to the ground floor to check why the electricity of the flat of the plaintiff no.1 has gone off, it was found that there was fire in the meter of the flat of plaintiffs. The care taker of the society had already made a complaint on the emergency number of the defendants. The emergency staff of the BSES came and removed the burned meter No. 40427649 and replaced it with a new meter having New CA No. 401259017. The plaintiffs kept on paying the electricity bills raised by the defendants after September, 2019 regularly and are paying the same till Civil Suit No. 927/20 Judgment dt. 30.05.2025 Page no. 2 of 36 date. It is further submitted that the documents filed by the defendants before various forums shows that the defendants officials have allegedly visited the flat of the plaintiff and carried out the inspection of the connected load in it. It is further submitted that the said inspection report and attached documents shows that the registered consumer of the property is Sh. Vikram Kakkar and the users were found to be Mr. Harsh and Ms. Priyanka. The factual situation is that the plaintiff no.2 is the owner of the flat situated on third floor of Surbhi Apartment and plaintiff no.1 and his wife are the user/occupier of the flat as a tenant and the above mentioned Harsh and Priyanka have no concern, whatsoever, with the flat which makes it clear that the defendants not only prepared a false and bogus inspection report but procured and fabricated false inspection report, assessment of load to extort money from the plaintiffs. It is submitted from the report ref. No. BR-1R-0B259716/3&4 it shows that the officials given their conclusion of Meter Tempered(MT) suspect case on the spot itself. On the basis of above mentioned false and bogus inspection report an order dated 06.12.2019 was passed by the assessing officer of the defendants in the name of Mr. Harsh and Priyanka which shows the malafide intention of the defendants to extort money from the plaintiffs.
4. It is further averred in the plaint that in the end of December, 2019, the plaintiffs received a bill dated 23.12.2019 of Rs. 1,23,562.30. The plaintiffs were shocked to see the bill raised by the defendants was assessed for Civil Suit No. 927/20 Judgment dt. 30.05.2025 Page no. 3 of 36 meter tempering. Then, the plaintiff no.1 immediately contacted the higher officials of the defendants with his grievances and was advised to meet defendant No.2 but on request of the plaintiff no.1,the aforesaid officials stated that this is system generated process and he cannot do anything. The plaintiff no.1 was advised to approach the PLA or the Court of law. The plaintiff no.1 made a complaint to the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum through his e-mail dated 28.12.2019. The plaintiff no.1 received the reply from the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum on 30.12.2019 conveying that the complaint was forwarded to the concerned department.
5. It is further averred in the plaint that vide reply dated 3rd January, 2020 sent by the defendants, it was revealed that a case of MT was booked on 03.12.2019, meter was tested in NABAL laboratory and meter was declared "METER ABNORMAL BURNT". It is further submitted that the plaintiffs were never informed about the testing of the burnt meter at the laboratory and it is illegal to conduct the inspection of the meter in absence of the plaintiffs.
6. It is further averred in the plaint that from the conduct and reply of the defendants, the plaintiff no.2 filed a complaint before the CGRF (BPRL), Sector-5, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi bearing CG No. 008/2020 titled as "Pawan Kumar VS BSES Rajdhani Power Limited". The defendants appeared on notice and filed an application alongwith the documents. The aforesaid complaint filed by the plaintiff no.2 was dismissed by the forum vide order dated 17.02.2020 for want of jurisdiction.
Civil Suit No. 927/20 Judgment dt. 30.05.2025 Page no. 4 of 36
7. It is further averred in the plaint that in September, 2020, again some sparking appeared in the meter board. The complaint was made to the defendants, in response, the technical team of the defendants reached and after thorough technical investigation, came to the conclusion that the sparking was due to faulty/rusty THIB and the same was to be replaced by them.
8. It is further averred in the plaint that on 20.10.2020, in absence of the plaintiffs, the officials of the defendants came to the society of the plaintiffs and removed the meter without any notice or information to them. On inquiry on the office of the society it was revealed that the meter was removed due to non-payment of the demand bill. The plaintiff no.2 immediately visited the office of the defendants at Hari Nagar, and the plaintiff no.2 was direct to deposit the minimum 30% amount of the raised bill of Rs.1,23,563/-in case the plaintiffs want to get reconnected their electricity. Finding no option, the plaintiffs deposited an amount of Rs. 37,100/-on 21.10.2020 vide transaction ID No. 21377183 with the defendants and only there after a new meter was installed and a fresh demand bill was raised on 21.10.2020.
9. It is further averred in the plaint that the plaintiff also approached the Electricity Ombudsman but the request of the plaintiff no.2 was declined. The defendants on the basis of alleged inspection dated 03.12.2019 raised illegal demand of Rs. 1, 23,562.30/- on the pretext of MT case. The defendants also removed the electricity meter of the plaintiff without information and consent of the plaintiffs Civil Suit No. 927/20 Judgment dt. 30.05.2025 Page no. 5 of 36 on 20.10.2020. The defendants are continuously extending threats to the plaintiffs to remove the meter and disconnect the electricity supply to the flat of the plaintiff in case, the plaintiffs fail to deposit the balance amount of the MT bill dated 21.10.2020, even on 18.11.2020 and today on 19.11.2020, the plaintiff no.2 has received threat of disconnection of electricity in case the balance amount of Rs.86,463/- was not deposited immediately.
10.It is further averred in the plaint that neither the alleged inspection on 03.12.2019 has ever been conducted nor the existing meter was replaced in the presence of plaintiffs/ their representative or any public person. It is submitted that the defendants are extending illegal and wrongful threat to disconnect the electricity connection provided in the suit property through CA No. 103464474, Meter No. 26698711 and in case the defendants are not restrained from disconnecting the electricity connection, the plaintiffs shall suffer deprivation of basics amenity.
11.It is further averred in the plaint that the defendant has neither been given any fair opportunity to the plaintiffs to put forward their versions nor the inspection of the meter was conducted in presence of the plaintiffs, hence the impugned electricity bill dated 23.12.2019 & 21.10.2020 are arbitrary, illegal and not maintainable under the law as against the plaintiffs. The impugned bills have been arbitrarily and illegally raised without any corroboration of consumption pattern of the plaintiffs through the CA No. 103464474. The same is liable to be declared as nullity.
12.It is further averred in the plaint that on 07.11.2020, the Civil Suit No. 927/20 Judgment dt. 30.05.2025 Page no. 6 of 36 plaintiff no.1 received an envelope containing a notice regarding inspection of burnt meter at their lab on 05.11.2020. On Tracking the consignment, it is found that the consignment was booked on 06.11.2020 with malafide intention that the plaintiff should not be present at the time of inspection of the burnt meter.
13.Resultantly, plaintiff filed the present suit with the following reliefs:
a) pass a decree of declaration thereby declaring the inspection report dated 03.12.2019, testing report no.
YMPL/EM/TAR/1173 dated 26.11.2019 and impugned bills dated 23.12.2019 and 21.10.2020 issued by the defendants against CA No. 103464474 provided in the premises bearing Flat no.141, DDA SFS Flats, Pocket-1, Sector-11, Dwarka, New Delhi, served upon the plaintiffs as registered consumer/user.
b) pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendant thereby restraining the defendants, their servants and representatives from disconnecting the electricity supply against CA No. 103464474 provided in the premises bearing Flat no.141, DDA SFS Flats, Pocket-1, Sector-11, Dwarka, New Delhi, served upon the plaintiffs as registered consumer/user, C) pass a decree of Rs. 37,100/- which was deposited by the plaintiffs no.2 as against the bill of Rs.1,23,563/- for recovery against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff No.2 with interest pendent-lite and future @24% per annum.
14.Defendant has appeared and filed written statement.
Civil Suit No. 927/20 Judgment dt. 30.05.2025 Page no. 7 of 36
15.In the WS, it is submitted that the Defendant denies all allegations contained in the Suit. It is further submitted in the WS that the Defendant on the basis of Inspection Reports, Load Report, Seizure Memo, and Meter Tampering Bill, has already initiated and filed a Criminal Complaint before Special Electricity Court, Dwarka as per the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 bearing "Criminal Complaint No. 908/2020 titled "BSES Rajdhani Power Limited Vs Harsh & Ors" and pending for adjudication, hence, the present suit merits dismissal on this ground alone.
16.It is submitted in the WS that the plaintiff has not come to this Court with clean hands. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit without any just and/or reasonable cause(s). The present Suit is a gross abuse of the processes of this Court. The contents of the plaint are misconceived and allegations made therein are false and frivolous and are made with ulterior motives.
17.It is submitted in the WS that the Plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit and the alleged cause of action is false and fabricated based on false claim. It is submitted that on 20.09.2019 the officers of the MMG Dept of the Defendant Company visited the premises bearing no. Flat No. 141, Pocket-1, Third Floor, Sector- 11 Dwarka, New Delhi 110075. On visit the officers of BSES Rajdhani Power Limited found that the electronic meter bearing no. 40427649 was in burnt condition. The Defendant Company than seized the burnt meter ie. electronic meter bearing no. 40427649 in a Gunny Bag Civil Suit No. 927/20 Judgment dt. 30.05.2025 Page no. 8 of 36 bearing No. 10109651 and Gunny Bag Seal No. 0283698. That the Defendant Company on seizing the burnt electronic meter bearing no 40427649 on the same day replaced it with a new electronic meter bearing No. 26698711. That the Defendant Company thereafter through lab testing notice of removed meter dated 20.09.2019 intimated the Consumer that the defective meter (Old meter no. 40427649) will be de-sealed/tested on 30.09.2019 at 10:30 to 1:00 pm or 2:00 pm to 3:00 pm and he can witness the testing/investigation process in person or through authorized representative. It is also submitted that Meter bearing No. 40427649 was tested in the Laboratory and the Lab Report No. YMPL/EM/TAR/1173 dated 26.11.2019 was passed wherein it was concluded that: (i) Meter found abnormal burnt, (ii) Accuracy could not be done, (iii) Meter data could not be downloaded, (iv) Meter found abnormal burnt. As per the leads of Lab Report, the Enforcement team of the Defendant Company ie. BSES Rajdhani Power Limited, conducted an inspection/raid on 03.12.2019 at 11:35 AM at the premises bearing no. DDA SFS Flat No 141, Pocket 1, Sector 11, Phase -1, Dwarka, Near Surbhi Apartments, New Delhi-110075, which was being used and occupied by the namely (i) Harsh, (ii) Priyanka (User's) and Mr. Vikram Kakkar (Registered Consumer). It is submitted that During Inspection, an electricity connection was found installed in the name of Sh. Vikram Kakkar i.e. Registered Consumer. During inspection following observation were made: (i) At the time of Inspection, one single phase electronic meter Civil Suit No. 927/20 Judgment dt. 30.05.2025 Page no. 9 of 36 bearing No. 26698711 CIR 812 KWH and MDI-2.12 KW was found installed at site, (ii) At the time of inspection, Necessary Videography was done which was conducted by Mr. Sayed from M/S Arora Photo Studio at site, (iii) At the time of inspection, Connected Load was assessed from site in the presence of User and which was found to be 15.467 KW/DX/MT (iv) During inspection, all reports prepared at site. It is submitted that the members of the inspection team after the raid and preparation of the Inspection Report, Load Report tendered the same to the Consumer and the same was accepted and signed, as it is evident from documents. Thereafter, the Assessing officer of the Defendant Company after examining the case passed a speaking order dated 06.12.2019 wherein the assessing officer found that the theft of electricity is established under the provisions of Regulations of Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Supply Code and Performance Standards Regulations, 2017 read with section 135 & 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003 as amended in 2007. As per above it was evident that the User i.e. (i) Harsh, (ii) Priyanka & Registered Consumer i.e. Vikram Kakkar has committed Dishonest Abstraction of Energy/Electricity, in terms of Section 135 read with 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and were using electricity illegally, by drawing the same dishonestly, from the Defendant's system hence, Defendant has assessed a civil liability of Rs.1,23,563/- against the Harsha, Priyanka (User's) and Vikram Kakkar (Registered Consumer) in accordance with the provisions of DERC Regulations and a copy of the said assessment, in Civil Suit No. 927/20 Judgment dt. 30.05.2025 Page no. 10 of 36 form of a supplementary bill dated 18.12.2019 for Dishonest Abstraction of Energy/Electricity has been served on the Harsh, Priyanka (User's) and Vikram Kakkar (Registered Consumer). It is further submitted that the present Suit has been filed by Plaintiff as a counter blast to the Assessment Bill for a sum of Rs.1,23,563/- raised by the Defendant, asking the Plaintiff to pay/deposit the Bill amount. Further, under the garb of present false and vexatious suit, the Plaintiff is trying to put an undue pressure, so that the Defendant indirectly succumb and do not proceed with the demand as raised vide Supplementary/Assessment Bill for the Dishonest Abstraction of Energy/Electricity ("DAE").
18.It is submitted in the WS that the Plaint is bad on the ground of non-joinder of the necessary parties i.e. Harsh, Priyanka (User's) and Vikram Kakkar (Registered Consumer) of the premises in question. It is submitted that during inspection, an electricity connection was found installed in the name of Vikram Kakkar and Harsh, Priyanka were found to be the users of the premises bearing no - DDA SFS Flats No 141, Pocket- 1, Sector- 11, Phase-1, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075, and also at the time of inspection on 03.12.2019, Registered Consumer and User, found indulged in Dishonest Abstraction of Electricity/Energy at the premises in question. Further, the impugned Assessment Bill, for a sum of Rs.1,23,563/- raised by the Defendant,which has been challenged by way of present suit, has been raised against Harsh, Priyanka (User's) and Vikram Kakkar as Registered Consumer.
Civil Suit No. 927/20 Judgment dt. 30.05.2025 Page no. 11 of 36 Hence Harsh, Priyanka and Vikram Kakkar are Necessary parties for proper adjudication of the case.
19.It is further submitted in the WS that the Plaintiff has filed the present suit without computing the court fees properly. It is submitted that Section 7 (iv) (c) of Court Fees Act, 1870 provides that in suits for a declaratory decree with consequential relief, the court fee shall be computed according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. It is further submitted that the relief sought in the suit is in the form of declaration that the bill of Rs.1,23,563/-bearing No. HNENR181220190020A0 dated 18.12.2019 as null and void. That if at all for the above said prayer the court has to declare the theft bill dated 18.12.2019 as annul and void and the consequential prayer of declaring that Plaintiff has no liability to pay the alleged bill amount along with passing a decree permanent injunction, then this would as such be governed by section 7 (iv) of the court fees act, 1870. As no ad valorem court fee has been paid by Plaintiff for seeking the kind of relief sought, therefore, the present Suit is not properly valued and in the want thereof, the present Suit deserves to be dismissed at the preliminary stage itself.
20.It is submitted in the WS that the Plaintiff has filed the suit with malafide intention which contains false averments and incorrect facts and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone with exemplary cost with regard thereto as per provisions of section 35 A of CPC, 1908. The Plaintiff who is seeking equitable relief must prove his bonafide and should first come forward before Civil Suit No. 927/20 Judgment dt. 30.05.2025 Page no. 12 of 36 this Court with clean hands.
21.It is further submitted in the WS that the Plaintiff has hidden the fact about pendency of his Criminal Complaint before this Court hence the discretionary relief cannot be granted to a party who is approaching the Court with unclean hands and incorrect facts and by hiding the most relevant fact.
22.It is submitted in the WS by the defendant that the Defendant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1954 having its registered office at BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.That the Defendant Company is a Licensee under a license granted by Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission under Section 20 of the Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000 and in terms of the Section 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Defendant Company by virtue of said License engaged in the business of distribution of electricity in the area, at which the premises used by the Plaintiff is located.
23.It is further submitted in the WS that the present complaint is being filed by the Defendant, acting through the authorized representative/Officer, Mrs. Monika Sharma. The Authorized Representative Mrs. Monika Sharma has been duly authorized by Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Defendant Company vide General Power of Attorney dated 04.10.2016 to represent the Defendant in the institution and/or defending of the legal proceedings of any nature. The CEO has been in turn authorized by the Executive Committee of the Defendant Company vide board resolution dated 04.10.2016 to delegate the authority Civil Suit No. 927/20 Judgment dt. 30.05.2025 Page no. 13 of 36 in favor of the authorized representative of the Defendant Company.
24.It is further submitted in the WS that on 20.09.2019 the officers of the MMG Dept of the Defendant Company visited the premises i.e. DDA SFS Flats No 141, Pocket- 1, Sector- 11, Phase-I, Dwarka, New Delhi 110075 used and occupied by the User's namely Harsh, Priyanka and Mr. Vikram Kakkar (Registered Consumer). The officers on visiting the site found that the electronic meter bearing no. 40427649 was in burnt condition. As sight evidence suggested the possibility of Dishonest Abstraction of Electricity/Energy ("DAE") hence meter bearing no. 40427649 was seized in Bag No. 10109651 vide Bag Seal No. 0283698. The said meter was then sent to the Laboratory, for thorough analysis, which is an independent third party authorised meter testing lab. The Old meter bearing no 40427649 was changed with new meter 26698711 on the same day. Further the Consumer was intimated through his representative vide Intimation Letter dated 20.09.2019 that the defective meter (Old meter no. 40427649) will be tested/de-sealed in his presence on 30.09.2019 at 10:30 to 1:00 pm or 2:00 pm to 3:00 pm and he can witness the testing/investigation process. The Consumer was further intimated that if he fails to appear in the lab then the sealed meter shall be opened and tested in the MMG LAB in his absence and the result of the test report shall be binding on him.
25.Further, It is submitted in the WS that the Meter bearing No. 40427649 was tested in the Laboratory and the Lab Civil Suit No. 927/20 Judgment dt. 30.05.2025 Page no. 14 of 36 vide its report no. YMPL/EM/TAR/1173 dated 26.11.2019 (duly tested by Sh. Ajay Salvi and Approved by Paresh Patel) concluded that:
i) Meter found abnormal burnt.
ii) Accuracy could not be done.
iii) Meter data could not be downloaded.
In conclusion the Laboratory declared that above evidence indicates that meter found abnormal burnt.
26.It is submitted in the WS that as per the leads of Lab Report (Lab Report No.YMPL/EM/TAR/1173), the joint inspection/Enforcement team conducted an inspection/raid on 03.12.2019 at 11:35 AM at the aforesaid premises used and occupied namely Harsh, Priyanka (User's) and Mr. Vikram Kakkar as (Registered Consumer). The raiding team consisted of:(1) Shri R.P Nirmal, Asstt. Manager,(ii) Shri Upendra, DET(iii) Shri Hari Prasad, L/M.
27.It is submitted in the WS that as per the leads of Lab Report, the joint inspection team/Enforcement team conducted an inspection/raid on 03.12.2019 at 11:35 AM at the aforesaid premises used and occupied by Harsh and Priyanka (User's) and Mr. Vikram Kakkar (Registered Consumer) during inspection following observations were made: -
a) At the time of inspection, one single phase Electronic meter bearing No. 26698711 C/R 812 KWH and MDI-2.12 KW was found installed at site.
b) During inspection, the connected load was assessed by authorized team in presence of User and found to be 15.467 KW/DX/MT.
Civil Suit No. 927/20 Judgment dt. 30.05.2025 Page no. 15 of 36
c) Necessary Videography is done by Mr. Sayed from M/s Arora Photo Studio at the site.
d) All the necessary documents prepared at site.
e) According to lab report Visual observation: -
i) Meter found abnormal burnt.
f) Special observation with remarks: -
1) Accuracy could not be done.
ii) Meter data could not be downloaded.
g) Conclusion: Meter found abnormal burnt.
28.It is submitted in the WS that during inspection, the total connected load, which was illegally used by the User's in illegally drawing the electricity, has been assessed by the inspection team as 15.467/DX/MT against the sanctioned load 3KW under Domestic category. It is further submitted that at the time of raid Necessary Videography was conducted by Sayed, from Arora Studio Videographer at site. That the members of the inspection team after the raid and preparation of the Inspection Report, Load Report tendered the same to the User and was accepted and signed, as it is evident from documents. Hence copy each of the Inspection Report, Meter Details Report, Load Report & Seizure Memo dated 03.12.2019 was duly sent to the User & Registered Consumer via speed post. That copy of the supplementary bill was duly sent to the User. Accordingly after examining the documents on record the Assessing Officer passed a Speaking Order on 06.12.2019 whereby the case has been examined and found that the meter no. 40427649 was installed on 19.10.2016. As per energy meter test/analysis report, plastic & hologram seals Civil Suit No. 927/20 Judgment dt. 30.05.2025 Page no. 16 of 36 were found burnt and meter has been found abnormally burnt. Further Consumption records for the period 03.09.2018 to 19.09.2019 shows an average recorded consumptions of 13 units per day, which has been found to be only 57.92% of the assessed consumption. Meter was found abnormally burnt and consumption of the meter has remained low, hence it is evident that the meter was intentionally burnt to destroy the evidence of meter tampering. The visual observation of burnt meter has been analyzed in laboratory and pattern of burning of meter indicates that meter was deliberately burnt to get rid of tampered element. Consumption has increased significantly after meter replacement. Consumption has been non-uniform. In addition, meter LCD found not ok. Thus, clear evidence of theft of electricity has been detected. It is responsibility of the consumer to keep the meter in safe custody. Consumer has been beneficiary of the tampered meter. Thus theft of electricity is established under Delhi Electricity Supply Code & Performance Standards Regulations, 2007 and Section 135 & 138 read with section 150 of the Electricity Act, 2003 amended in 2007. Further, it was also held that the bill for theft of electricity will be raised considering the Delhi Electricity Supply Code and performance Standards Regulation 2017 and as per the tariff schedule.
29.It is submitted in the WS that the facts as disclosed above establish that the Plaintiff has acted dishonestly, and with an intention to make unlawful gain, and cause unlawful loss to the Defendant. The Plaintiff, with dishonest Civil Suit No. 927/20 Judgment dt. 30.05.2025 Page no. 17 of 36 intention had employed a method, which resulted in a manner whereby electricity was being stolen. The Plaintiff has acted with the intention of illegally abstracting and consuming electricity, without paying the applicable tariff for the same. The Plaintiff had committed Dishonest Abstraction of Electricity, in terms of Section 135 & 138 read with section 150 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Plaintiff was using electricity illegally, by drawing the same dishonestly, from the Defendant's system. Consequently, the defendant has assessed a civil liability of Rs.1,23,563/- against the plaintiff in accordance with the provisions of DERC (Supply Code and Performance Standards), Regulations, 2017. That now the Plaintiff is liable to pay the bill of Supply for Electricity (Assessment of Meter Tampering) bearing no.
HNENR181220190020A0 for an amount of Rs.123,563/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Three Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty Three Only) to the Defendant by the Plaintiff for the wrongful abstraction, consumption, theft and use of electricity. That, the same has been computed on the basis of the billing load and as per the applicable tariff.
30.It is further submitted in the WS that from the documents on record it is apparently clear that against Harsh & Priyanka (User's), Mr. Vikram Kakkar (Registered Consumer) has willfully neglected to pay the said amount. It has; therefore, become evident that against Harsh, Priyanka (User's) and Mr. Vikram Kakkar (Registered Consumer) had malafide intention and was using the electricity illegally without any intention to pay for use of Civil Suit No. 927/20 Judgment dt. 30.05.2025 Page no. 18 of 36 such electricity.
31.Further, instead of paying the Assessment Bill, the Plaintiff, has filed the present false, frivolous and vexatious suit, praying inter alia for quashing of the Bill. Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the acts of the Plaintiff (as explained above) does not give any right to the Plaintiff to seek any discretionary relief from this Court, as the persons seeking any discretionary relief should come to the court with the clean hand and bonafide intentions. Defendant has denied all the contents of the plaint.
32.Issue framed on 15.02.2022 as follows:
1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of declaration declaring that inspection report dt. 03.12.2019, testing report dt. 26.11.2019 and impugned bills dt.
23.12.2019 and 21.10.2020 issued by the defendant against CA No. 103464474 upon plaintiffs as null and void? ....... OPP.
2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of permanent injunction from disconnection of the electricity in the premises of plaintiffs in action under the above impugned bills? ....... OPP.
3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a money decree of Rs.37,100/- deposited by plaintiff no.2 against the bill of Rs.1,23,563/- against the defendants with interest pendentelite and future @ 24 % per annum? OPP.
4) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties being Harsh, Priyanka and Vikram Kakker being registered user and registered consumer respectively?..... OPD.
5) Relief.
33.The plaintiff has examined two witnesses on their behalf i.e. the plaintiff Sh. Himanshu Joshi who stepped into the witness box and examined himself as PW1. In his testimony, PW1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Civil Suit No. 927/20 Judgment dt. 30.05.2025 Page no. 19 of 36 being Ex.PW1/A and he reiterated the contents of the plaint and also relied upon the following documents:
1) Photocopy of title documents are marked as Mark PW1/A(colly).
2)Photocopy of the rent agreement is Ex.PW1/1 (OSR).
3) Photograph of electricity meter is Ex.PW1/2.
4) Photocopies of electricity bills are marked as Mark PW1/G (colly).
5) Copy of impugned bill is Ex.PW1/4.
6) Photocopy of representation sent to defendant on email are marked as Mark PW1/B (colly).
7) Photocopies of reply and documents filed by the defendant are marked as Mark PW1/C (colly).
8) Copy of order dt. 17. 2.2020 with covering letter are Ex.PW1/5.
9) Copies of bill and receipt are marked as Mark PW1/D (colly).
10) Copy of order dt. 6.11.2020 alongwith application dt. 27.10.2020 marked as Mark PW1/E. (colly).
11) Copy of envelop and consignment track report are marked as Mark PW1/F (colly).
34. In the cross-examination, it is deposed as under:
"I am well conversant in Hindi and English language. I am a college graduate. It is correct that the rent agreement is not registered. (vol- the said agreement is notarized and has e- stamped). It is correct that at para no.2 is hand written, but I am not aware who has written the same. It is correct that rent agreement was for the period of 11 months only. It is correct that I stated in para no.3 of my affidavit in evidence that on 20.9.2019 the electricity went out in my flat. It is correct that certain BSES officials came to my premises/ meter installation area and replaced the burnt meter with new meter. I have not placed any bill payment receipt for the period starting from 20.09.2019 till date (vol- I make online bill payment). I have not placed any rent receipt of payment on record. (vol- I make the online payment of the rent to Ms Mamta Mukherjee). I have not placed any bank statement to show the rent payment. I have not placed any certificate under Section 65B Evidence Act with respect to Ex.PW1/2- photograph. It is correct that I have not made any complaint against the BSES regarding removal of electricity meter after 03.12.2019. I live with my wife Ms. Jaya Civil Suit No. 927/20 Judgment dt. 30.05.2025 Page no. 20 of 36 Bhatt Joshi at the rented premises/ suit property and no other member stays there. I have not seen the CD along with the written statement. It is wrong to suggest that I never been tenant in the suit property, that the said rent agreement is forged and fabricated. It is further wrong to suggest that the said rent agreement has expired and hence, I was not staying in the suit property during intervening period of 2019. I do not know who is Ms. Priyanka and Sh. Harsh. It is wrong to suggest that I have filed the collusive suit in order to protect the actual R/C Mr. Vikram Kakker and actual user Ms. Priyanka and Sh. Harsh. I am not aware of any case filed by BSES in Spl. Electricity court, Dwarka with respect to electricity bill in question. I have not filed any complaint against BSES. I have intimated to my landlord and he had taken action which I am not aware. I do not know the name of the caretaker of the society who had intimated the BSES as explained in para 3 of the evidence affidavit Ex.PW1/A. I and my neighbours have not seen the electricity meter catching fire on its own. BSES never conducted raid/ inspection the premises on 20.9.2019 in my presence. (vol- I had only received one bill Ex.PW1/4). I do not know the names of all the members of the society where the premises is located. I have not sent any email to BSES but my landlord has dealt with the BSES. I am not aware about the judgment cited in para no.11 of my evidence affidavit Ex.PW1/A. I do not know what is "faulty rusty thib". I have not sought any document from the BSES officials who have stated that there was faulty rusty thib as explained in para no.9 of the evidence affidavit Ex.PW1/A. No document was provided by the BSES official regarding the said condition of electricity meter. I have not seen any burnt meter on 20.09.2019 except my meter. I cannot tell my meter number. I make the payment of the electricity bill every month through online mode. I do not remember the CA number of the electricity meter. I do not know the name of the person against whom the bills were issued by BSES. I do not know the name of the registered consumer. It is wrong to suggest that I do not know the CA number, meter number and name of the registered consumer of the electricity connection of the premises as I am not the tenant of the premises. It is wrong to suggest that only subject meter was abnormal burnt since the tenant Civil Suit No. 927/20 Judgment dt. 30.05.2025 Page no. 21 of 36 beneficiary of subject meter had tried to destroy the evidence of meter tampering therefore, other meters were not burnt abnormally. I have not made any written representation to BSES demanding testing of the subject meter to be done in my presence. I have not paid the amount of Rs.37,100/- on 21.10.2020 to BSES. It is wrong to suggest that I have not filed any document showing my tenancy in the premises since 2019 till today. I am still residing at the same premises. I am paying rent to the owner, maintenance fees to the society, other charges to the society, bill for Airtel broad band. I have my aadhar card, voter I - card of the same premises. It is correct that I have not filed any proof regarding this. (vol - I can produce the same). Plaintiff no.2 / Pawan Kumar had made the payment of Rs.37,100/- to BSES so that meter is not removed and electricity connection is not disconnected. I do not know the sanctioned load of the electricity meter connection of my flat no.141. It is correct that user of the electricity meter. It is correct that as per Ex.PW1/4, plaintiff no.2 is not the registered consumer of electricity meter in question. I do not know Mr. Vikram Kakker whose name is mentioned as registered consumer in Ex.PW1/4. It is correct that as per Ex.PW1 /4, the name of user is mentioned as Harsh and Priyanka. At this stage, the witness is shown a CD now exhibited as PW1/DX1. (CD / videography is played on the computer system of the court) the video is shown to the witness to which he stated that the premises shown in videography is not my Flat no. 141 where I reside. I cannot tell if the said society is the society where I reside. I do not know the flat number of adjacent flat. It is wrong to suggest that I do not know the flat number of the adjacent flat as I am not residing in the said premises. I am residing in the said flat for more than five years. I am working as Chief Manager (Admn) in Times Internet Ltd. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely at the instance of plaintiff no.2."
35.PW2 is Sh. Pawan Kumar, S/o. Sh. Jeebach Mehto, who has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW2/A and relied upon the documents which are Civil Suit No. 927/20 Judgment dt. 30.05.2025 Page no. 22 of 36 already exhibited and marked by PW1.
36.In the cross-examination conducted by defendant/BSES, he deposed as under:
"I do not reside at the suit property bearing Flat no. 141, Pocket-1, Sector-11, Dwarka, New Delhi. I reside at C-304, K.M. Apartment, Sector-12, Plot no.12, Dwarka, New Delhi. The meter is installed at the suit premises in the name of original allottee namely Sh. Vikram Kakkar. I purchased the suit property in 2016 from Sh. Tarun Verma. I never resided at the suit property and since the date of purchase, I had rented out the suit property. From 2016 to 2018 different tenant had resided in the suit property and from October 2018 onwards plaintiff no.1 is residing at the suit property. I had last visited the suit property at about 2 and 2 ½ years back. I do not remember the name of the husband but wife name was Malini Bhattacharya who had resided in 2016 till 2018 as tenant in the suit property. I do not get the meter in question mutated in my name because there was no such mandatory requirement to get it in my name. (vol- as the tenants were paying the rent so I did not pay attention towards this issue).I was not present on 20.09.2019 when the electricity of the subject flat went off more than one hour. I was not present on 03.12.2019 at the suit property when the inspection took place. I am not aware of any case bearing criminal compliant no. 908/2020 titled as BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs. Harsh and ors pending before Special Electricity Court, Dwarka against the bill in question. I am not aware about the judgments quoted in para no.11 of my evidence affidavit Ex.PW2/A. I came to know about the inspection dt. 3.12.2019 conducted by BSES at the suit property in reply filed by BSES to my complaint before CGRF, Pushp Vihar, Saket, Delhi. The CGRF did not attend the complaint thereafter for want of jurisdiction. I received the bill through caretaker of the society where the flat is situated. I do not remember the name of the caretaker of the society where the flat is situated. I do not know any person by the name of Harsh and Priyanka. I can identify my flat in question if the same is shown to me. I can not tell the flat number of the Civil Suit No. 927/20 Judgment dt. 30.05.2025 Page no. 23 of 36 adjoining flat next to my flat. At this stage, CD already Ex. PW1/DX1 is played in the computer system of this Court and the same is shown to the witness to which the witness states that the flat shown in the footage is not my flat. I can not tell the footage shown to me belongs to my DDA SFS society. I do not know the name of the persons shown in the footage. Society shown in the footage seems like DDA SFS society where my flat no.141 is located. However, the flat shown in the footage does not belong to me. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely to save Priyanka, Harsh and Vikram Kakkar who were not impleaded in the present case being necessary party. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely that is why I am not identifying the flat as shown in the footage.I do not remember the old and new meter number installed in the suit premises. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
37. PE was closed on 17.04.2023 and the defendant has examined one witness i.e. Sh. C.B. Sharma, AR of the defendant who stepped into the witness box and examined himself as DW1. In his testimony, DW1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit being Ex.DW1/1 and he reiterated the contents of the WS and also relied upon the following documents:
1) Copy of authority letter is Ex.DW1/A (OSR).
38. In the cross-examination, he deposed as under:
"It is correct that I have not filed any copy of resolution of BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. (vol- the resolution was passed in the company and on the basis of resolution, my power of attorney has been constituted. ) It is wrong to suggest that Sh. Vineet Sikka is not authorized to execute the GPA in my favour. It is correct that I do not have any personal knowledge of the present case. It is correct that the Written statement was not signed in my presence."
39. DE was closed on 26.09.2023 and final arguments were heard.
Civil Suit No. 927/20 Judgment dt. 30.05.2025 Page no. 24 of 36
40. My issue-wise findings are as under:
1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of declaration declaring that inspection report dt. 03.12.2019, testing report dt. 26.11.2019 and impugned bills dt.
23.12.2019 and 21.10.2020 issued by the defendant against CA No. 103464474 upon plaintiffs as null and void? ....... OPP.
And
2)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of permanent injunction from disconnection of the electricity in the premises of plaintiffs in action under the above impugned bills? ....... OPP.
And
3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a money decree of Rs.37,100/- deposited by plaintiff no.2 against the bill of Rs.1,23,563/- against the defendants with interest pendentelite and future @ 24 % per annum? OPP.
41.All issues are taken up together as they are interconnected with each other. In order to avoid repetition and confusion, all issues are decided together. The onus of proof to establish the all the aforesaid issues was upon plaintiff.
42.It is well settled principle of law of Evidence that the burden of proof in civil trial is the obligation on the plaintiff that the plaintiff would adduce evidence that proves his claims against the defendant and is based on preponderance of the probabilities. Under Indian law, until and unless an exception is created by law, the burden of proof lies on the person making any claim or asserting any fact. A person who asserts a particular fact is required to affirmatively establish it. The Supreme Court in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder V Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple & another, VI(2003)SLT307 observed that Civil Suit No. 927/20 Judgment dt. 30.05.2025 Page no. 25 of 36 whether a civil or a criminal case, the anvil for testing of 'proved', 'disproved' and 'not proved', as defined in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is one and the same. A fact is said to be 'proved' when, if considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of a particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. It was further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in A. Raghavamma & another V Chenchamma & another, AIR 1964 SC 136 , there is an essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof: burden of proof lies upon a person who has to prove the fact and which never shifts. Onus of proof shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Rangammal V Kuppuswami and others, Civil Appeal No 562 of 2003 observed that burden of proof lies on the person who first asserts the fact and not on the one who denies that fact to be true. The responsibility of the defendant to prove a fact to be true would start only when the authenticity of the fact is proved by the plaintiff. Thus, it can be said that the burden of proving the facts rests on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative issues.
43.Further, Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act contained that no fact need to be proved in any proceedings which parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the herein, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands or which by any rule of pleadings enforce at the time they are deemed to have Civil Suit No. 927/20 Judgment dt. 30.05.2025 Page no. 26 of 36 admitted by their pleadings.
44.Keeping the above mentioned legal principles of evidence in mind, let's advert to the facts of the present case, it is admitted in the pleadings and evidence of both the parties that one incident relating to fire in electricity meter had occurred on 20.09.2019 qua property in question ie Flat no. 141, Pocket-1, Sector-11, DDA SFS Society, Dwarka, New Delhi. It is further admitted by the parties that on the date of aforesaid incident, defendant had also removed the burnt electricity meter of the flat in question.
45.The bone of contention between the parties is that, it is the case of plaintiffs that the plaintiff no.1 Sh. Himanshu Joshi is tenant of plaintiff no. 2 namely Sh. Pawan Kumar and it is the plaintiff no.1 who was residing at the flat in question, at the time when the fire broke in the electricity meter. It was further argued that after that incident, plaintiffs kept on paying the electricity bills, however to their utter shock, they received the electricity bill dated 23.12.2019 of Rs.1,23,562.30/- from defendant. Further, it was submitted that when the plaintiffs pursued the aforesaid bill with the officials of defendant and ultimately, filed the case before the Consumer Redressal forum since no action was being taken by the defendant. Furthermore, it was submitted that there upon the receipt of reply, the plaintiffs came to know that the defendant had prepared false and bogus inspection report as no inspection was ever carried upon the premises upon the plaintiff and upon such bogus report subsequently false assessment load was made out against the plaintiffs and thereafter, speaking order was Civil Suit No. 927/20 Judgment dt. 30.05.2025 Page no. 27 of 36 passed against them without giving them any opportunity. Finally, on 20.10.2020 officials of the defendant came to the society of the plaintiffs and removed the meter due to non-payment of demand bill dt. 23.12.2019, thus, forcing the plaintiff for making the payment of Rs.37,100/- for installing the electricity meter and the fresh demand bill was raised on 21.10.2020. Thus, plaintiffs were constrained to file the present suit against the defendants.
46.Per contra, it was the case of the defendant that after they replaced the burnt meter with new electricity meter, the burnt meter was taken in a sealed bag and sent the same for Lab testing for which intimation was given to the users of the premises in question. Further, it was submitted that upon the inspection by the laboratory, it was found that it was burnt abnormally and thereafter enforcement team was formed which conducted the inspection at the premises in question on 03.12.2019. Furthermore, it was argued that the aforesaid inspection report was signed by Harsh and Priyanka and same is reflected from the documents as well. Further, after inspection report, detailed speaking order dt. 06.12.2019 was passed by the assessing officer which assessed the civil liability of Rs.1,23,563/- against Sh. Harsh, Priyanka and Sh. Vikram Kakkar. It was also submitted that the defendant has also registered criminal complaint u/s. 135 of Electricity Act against them which is pending before Ld. Electricity Court, South West, Dwarka. Therefore, the plaintiffs have filed the false and frivolous case in counter blast to the said complaint in order to save Sh. Harsh, Priyanka and Vikram Kakkar. Hence, it was Civil Suit No. 927/20 Judgment dt. 30.05.2025 Page no. 28 of 36 prayed that present suit may be dismissed.
47.In order to prove their case, plaintiffs came into witness box as PW-1 Sh. Himanshu Joshi and PW-2 Sh Pawan Kumar who were examined in chief and cross examined. From the perusal of testimonies of both witness, it reveals that both have been consistent with each other and have corroborated each other on material terms. Further, both the plaintiffs have been consistent in their testimonies that the plaintiff no.1 is tenant of plaintiff no.2 and it is plaintiff no.1 who is residing at the flat in question and no such persons namely Harsh and Priyanka are neither known to plaintiffs nor they were the real users of electricity at flat in question. Furthermore, plaintiffs were consistent in denying any inspection was done by the officials of the defendant at the flat in question on 03.12.2019 and also denied their knowledge regarding Sh Harsh and Priyanka who alleged by defendant were the real users of the electricity at flat in question, which were found at the given premises when the alleged inspection was done on 03.12.2019. Further, in the cross examination of both the plaintiffs, they were shown the CD ie Ex PW1/DX1 ie videography allegedly done at the time of inspection qua flat in question done by the officials of defendant. Further, after the seeing the aforesaid CD, both the plaintiffs denied that the flat being shown in the video belongs to them and also denied that they know or identifies the persons which are being shown to be found be in the said flat in the video. Further, both plaintiffs also stated that from the contents of CD, it cannot be said with the certainty that even the Civil Suit No. 927/20 Judgment dt. 30.05.2025 Page no. 29 of 36 society in which recording has been done is the same society in which flat in question is there or not. Hence, plaintiffs have denied the contents of the CD Ex. PW1/DX1 and the onus of proof was shifted upon the defendants to prove the same. It is relevant to mention here that defendant side neither could elicit any major contradictions from the plaintiffs nor could impeach the credibility of plaintiffs as witness in their cross examination. Therefore, it can be plaintiffs have withstood the test of cross examination.
48.Further, plaintiffs in order to support their contention that plaintiff no.1 was the tenant of the plaintiff no.2 and was residing at the flat in question, they placed on record the rent agreement executed between them ie Ex. PW1/1 ( OSR). It is relevant to mention here that the defendant's side has tried to question the credibility of aforesaid rent agreement on the grounds, firstly, as per the plaintiffs, the plaintiff no.1 is tenant of plaintiff no.2, which commenced from 01.09.2018 whereas admittedly from the rent agreement, it can be said that same was executed on 09.04.2018 and date of commencement of tenancy is also written by pen whereas entire agreement is typed. Thus, it was concluded on the behalf of defendant that same executed belatedly by the plaintiffs in order to save harsh, Priyanka (registered users) and Vikram Kakkar (registered consumer).
49.It is relevant to mention from the perusal of the rent agreement, it is evident that same has been executed on 09.04.2019 and date of tenancy has been written by the Civil Suit No. 927/20 Judgment dt. 30.05.2025 Page no. 30 of 36 pen, however same is not much significance in the given factual matrix. Since, the aforesaid rent agreement was executed on stamp paper and upon the perusal of same which is annexed with rent agreement, it can be said that date of purchase of stamp paper is 09.04.2019 and same is bought by the wife of plaintiff which is mentioned as first party and plaintiff no.2 along with his wife as second party for purpose of lease qua flat in question. Further, the date of occurrence of fire in electricity meter is of 20.09.2019, therefore the question of execution for purpose of creating evidence in back date by the plaintiffs loses its significance, as there is considerable gap between the execution of rent agreement and fire incident in electricity meter of flat in question.
50.Secondly, the objection of defendant qua rent agreement was that same was executed for 11 months only, therefore considering that same will be expired on 31.07.2019 whereas admittedly the incident in question is of 20.09.2019, thus it establishes plaintiff no.1 was not relevant tenant at the time and Harsh and Priyanka were real users of electricity at the relevant time.
51.Again, in order to appreciate the contention of defendant's side, it will be relevant to see the cross-examination dated 21.02.2023 of PW-1/plaintiff no.1 Sh. Himanshu Joshi. PW1 has stated in his cross examination unequivocally that he is staying at the flat in question till today and he is paying rent to the owner, bill for Airtel broad band and maintenance/ other charges to plaintiff no.2 and has also Aadhar card and voter card of same address. Pertinently, Civil Suit No. 927/20 Judgment dt. 30.05.2025 Page no. 31 of 36 when PW1 was asked that whether he placed such proof on record, to which he replied that he has not filed the same, however he can produce the same. However, defendant's side chose not to ask the witness for placing the same on record despite cross examining him on same point. It is relevant to note that when a witness in cross- examination admits that they have a document relevant to the case and can produce it, but the cross-examining party fails to call for or tender the document, the contents of that document cannot later be presumed in that adverse party's favor. It amounts to waiver or tactical omission, and the Court can draw an adverse inference or treat it as an abandoned line of evidence. Thus, defendant's side, despite in being position to demolish the entire case of plaintiff still chose not to do, hence now it cannot take advantage of his own omission. Hence, it can be said that plaintiffs are able to establish that it was plaintiff no.1, who was the tenant and user of electricity at the flat in question at the relevant time.
52.Further, plaintiffs have also filed electricity bills of both post and pre occurrence of incident in question ie Mark PW1/G (colly) for showing that there was no stark difference between the bills raised upon the plaintiff after that incident and they were paying the bills regularly. It is relevant to mention here upon the perusal of same, no such big difference in the electricity bills has come to fore nor any questions/ suggestions have been asked by the defendant relating the same. Hence, it can be said that plaintiffs have been able to establish that no major Civil Suit No. 927/20 Judgment dt. 30.05.2025 Page no. 32 of 36 difference have occurred in the amount of bills also after the installment of new electricity meter by the defendant.
53.In the light of above, it can be said that plaintiffs are able to establish their case on preponderance of probabilities that plaintiff no.1, was the tenant and user of electricity at the flat in question at the relevant time and no raid made was conducted by the defendant on 03.12.2019 on the premises in question. Hence, the onus to prove in terms of Section 102 of Indian Evidence Act has shifted upon the defendant side.
54.Pertinently, DW-1 Sh. C.B Sharma appeared as AR of defendant, however his evidence affidavit in the examination in chief remain limited to the point that he has been duly authorised representative of the defendant and general power of attorney has been executed in his favor. Defendant's side has failed to lead any evidence in their defendant evidence, thus unable to prove their contentions even on the scale of preponderance of probabilities. It is relevant to mention that it was the case of the defendant that Harsh and Priyanka were found at the premises in question when the inspection was done by the Enforcement Cell of the defendant and even the videography was done at the relevant time where it can be seen that Harsh and Priyanka were present. However, strangely, no efforts were made by the defendant to bring any official of raiding party of alleged inspection or the person who conducted the videography of premises in question in the witness box for proving the said contention, therefore, it can be said that it is a material omission on Civil Suit No. 927/20 Judgment dt. 30.05.2025 Page no. 33 of 36 the part of the defendant since it could have established the stand taken by the defendants in their WS that it was the Harsh and Priyanka who were the real users and not the plaintiff no.2. Thus, it can be said that the defendant failed to discharge the onus of proof which was shifted upon him.
55.In the light of above discussion in the afore-going paragraphs of the judgment, it can be said that the plaintiffs are able to prove that no inspection was carried out at their premises and defendant has raised the inflated demand of Rs.1,23,563/- on 23.12.2019 on pre-ponderance of probabilities and plaintiff no.2 was forced to deposit the amount of Rs.37,100/- for re-installation of electricity meter even if there was no liability. Accordingly, the aforesaid issues 1 to 3 are decided in the favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO.4) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties being Harsh, Priyanka and Vikram Kakker being registered user and registered consumer respectively?..... OPD.
56.The onus to prove the aforesaid issue was upon the defendant. It was argued on the behalf of defendant that the present suit is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties since the Vikram Kakkar (registered consumer) and Harsh and Priyanka (registered users) have not been made party in the present suit.
57.The aforesaid contention is devoid of any merit. It has not been disputed by the defendant side that plaintiff no.2 has purchased the premises in question by way registered sale deed dated 14.10.2016 from the successor in title of Sh Civil Suit No. 927/20 Judgment dt. 30.05.2025 Page no. 34 of 36 Vikram Kakkar ie Mark PW1/A (Colly). Therefore, even if the electricity meter is in favor of Vikram Kakkar, present suit could have been carried by either user of property ie plaintiff no.1 or subsequent owner of property, hence it cannot be said that Sh. Vikram Kakkar was the necessary party in the present suit. Further, Harsh and Priyanka are real users of premises in question was the defence of defendant and not of the plaintiffs, in which defendant's side has failed to prove even on the scale of preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, it cannot be said that Harsh and Priyanka were necessary parties in the present suit in the given factual matrix.
58.In the light of above, the aforesaid issue is decided against the defendant and in favor of plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.5) Relief.
59.The suit of the plaintiff is therefore decreed in the favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. Thus, plaintiffs are entitled for the decree of declaration and accordingly, inspection report dated 03.12.2019, testing report no. YMPL/EM/TAR/1173 dated 26.11.2019 and impugned bills dated 23.12.2019 and 21.10.2020 issued by the defendants against CA No. 103464474 provided in the premises bearing Flat no.141, DDA SFS Flats, Pocket-1, Sector-11, Dwarka, New Delhi, served upon the plaintiffs as registered consumer/user are declared null and void.
60.Plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants thereby defendants or any person claiming through them are restrained from disconnecting the electricity supply against CA No. 103464474 provided Civil Suit No. 927/20 Judgment dt. 30.05.2025 Page no. 35 of 36 in the premises bearing Flat no.141, DDA SFS Flats, Pocket-1, Sector-11, Dwarka, New Delhi in relation to raised bill dt. 23.12.2019 only. It is clarified that the aforesaid relief relates to the incident in question otherwise plaintiffs are expected to pay their electricity bills regularly and in case of default, the defendant is at liberty to take action as per law.
61. Plaintiff no.2 is entitled to a decree of Rs. 37,100/- which was deposited by him as against the bill of Rs.1,23,563/- for recovery against the defendant alongwith the interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of actual realization of the decreetal amount.
62.Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiffs.
63.Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
64.File be consigned to Record Room after compliance with due formalities.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.05.2025. Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT MITTAL MITTAL Date:
2025.05.30 17:22:38 +0530 (ANKIT MITTAL) CIVIL JUDGE-01(SW)/DWARKA COURTS NEW DELHI Civil Suit No. 927/20 Judgment dt. 30.05.2025 Page no. 36 of 36