Delhi District Court
Shri Hari Kesh vs North Delhi Power Ltd on 26 September, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA: ASJ ( ELECTRICITY)
NW DISTRICT:ROHINI: DELHI
Suit no. M376/11
Unique ID no. 024040R0183022011
Shri Hari Kesh
Son of late Shri Tek Chand,
R/o G27/206, Sector3, Rohini,
Delhi110085 .............Petitioner.
Vs
North Delhi Power Ltd.
Through its Chief Executive Officer,
office of EAC, EAC Building Sector3,
Rohini, Delhi110085. ...........Respondent.
SUIT FOR DECLARATION WITH PERMANENT INJUNCTION
AND MANDATORY INJUCTION
Date of institution : 13.07.2011
Date of reserving order : 19.09.2015
Date of pronouncement : 26.09.2015
Appearances
Sh. Manish Makkar ............Ld counsel for the plaintiff.
Sh. V.K. Rai ............Ld counsel for the defendant.
J U D G M E N T
1) Brief facts of the present suit for declaration and permanent injunction are that as per plaintiff he is the bonafide user of electricity connection bearing K. no. 42200125454, C.A. No. 60004442475 installed at CS/ M no. 376/11 (Hari Kesh Vs TPDDL) Page no...... 1 of 23 H.No. A333, Raj Park, Sultan Puri, Delhi for industrial purpose with sanctioned load of 11.00KW.
2) The petitioner's case is that he has been making payment of electricity charges regularly. He states that he has taken the premises on rent on 11.05.11 and at his request an application for enhancement of electricity load was given to the respondent company to increase the load from 2.00KW to 11.00KW. It is stated that the load was increased and the amount due was paid by the petitioner as per the demand note raised by the defendant company. It is stated that an inspection was conducted at the premises on 27.05.11 by the officials of NDPL. On the date of inspection he was told by the officials of the NDPL that they had merely come to check as to whether the load was enhanced or not as per his request. He states that the officials of defendant company had also come to attend a complaint dated 25.05.11 which had been given by the petitioner regarding burning of the meter, however an illegal inspection report was prepared based on concocted facts and an illegal bill towards theft of electricity was raised against him for a sum of Rs. 2,08,283/.
3) Written statement was filed by the defendant company wherein they have refuted the case of the plaintiff and have stated that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief since he has willingly and knowingly indulged in theft of electricity by way of dishonest abstraction of energy and has caused wrongful loss to the defendant company. They have also stated that the meter installed CS/ M no. 376/11 (Hari Kesh Vs TPDDL) Page no...... 2 of 23 at the premises of the plaintiff was found tampered with when the site was inspected and a load of 9.630 KW was found connected against the sanctioned load of 2 KW. It is stated that meter half seals and hologram seals were found tampered. It is also stated that as per consumption analysis it was found that average recorded consumption was 131.27 units per month whereas the average computed consumption was found to be 1444.50 units per month. Thus, the recorded consumption was found to be low being just 9.09% of the computed consumption. It is thus stated that bill raised by the defendant company is correct and as per law and same be ordered to be paid by the plaintiff and suit of the plaintiff be dismissed.
4) On 20.02.2014, after completion of the pleading of the parties following issues were settled: i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a declaration, as prayed for? OPP ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction,as prayed for ? OPP iii. Relief, any .
5) Plaintiff in support of his case has examined himself as PW1. He has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/1 and has filed documents Ex. PW1/A to Ex. PW1/G. He has stated in his evidence that he is the bonafide user of the connection No. 4220125454 being tenant of the CS/ M no. 376/11 (Hari Kesh Vs TPDDL) Page no...... 3 of 23 registered consumer Sh. Desh Raj with a sanctioned load of 11 KW for industrial purpose. He stated that on 02.05.11 at his request the load was enhanced from 2.00 KW to 11.00 KW. He has stated that he has deposited the amount towards the enhanced load on 25.05.11. He has further stated that he has never misused the electricity connection nor he has ever committed theft of electricity. He further stated that he has taken the premises on rent on 11.05.11. An inspection was carried out by some officials of NDPL at his premises and they had told him that they had come to check as to whether the load has been enhanced or not. They had also come to attend a complaint dated 25.05.11 which was given by the petitioner regarding burning of the meter. However, on 27.05.11 he was not present at the premises when the officials of respondent company had come to the premises and had broken the meter without any authority. When he had reached the spot the officials of the respondent company had asked him to put his signatures on some papers, however he had refused to sign the papers. He stated that by the time he had reached at the spot the officials of the respondent company had already broken the seals of the meter in question and had broken the electricity meter in pieces. The petitioner's signatures were obtained on some papers by the officials of NDPL by misrepresentation. A show cause notice was issued to him wherein it was mentioned that a load of 9.63 KW was found connected against the sanctioned load of 2 KW and that the seals of the meters were found tampered as the insulation of neutral CT wire was found removed. Neutral wire was found disconnected from PCB. It is stated that a complaint had already been lodged with the NDPL officials on 25.05.11 CS/ M no. 376/11 (Hari Kesh Vs TPDDL) Page no...... 4 of 23 regarding burning of the meter, therefore, there was no question of tampering with the meter. He has further stated that based on the illegal inspection report an illegal bill was raised against him for the period 28.05.10 to 27.05.11 which is based on assumption as the premises was lying unoccupied till 11.05.11 when he had taken it on rent.
He proved the copy of impugned bill as Ex. PW 1/A, speaking order as Ex. PW 1/B, show cause notice as Ex. PW 1/C, inspection report as Ex. PW 1/D, demand notice as Ex. PW 1/E, his reply to the same was proved as Ex. PW 1/F and the copy of the rent agreement was proved as Ex. PW 1/G.
6) On being crossexamined by Sh. V.K. Rai Ld. Counsel for the defendant company he stated that he is dealing with stitching of upper part of the shoes and is doing this business for last three years and at present from the same premises where electricity connection is installed. He stated that he had not taken the electricity connection in his name. He further stated that it was already installed when he had occupied the premises in question. The electricity connection is installed in the name of Sh. Desh Raj, who is the owner of the premises in question but is not residing at the said premises. He stated that the tenanted premises is constructed up to three floors and he is in occupation of ground floor and half portion of the first floor. He stated that both the portions are being used for business purposes only. He stated that he is not aware as to whether the owner of the premises had got installed the electricity connection for industrial purposes. He stated that some tenants CS/ M no. 376/11 (Hari Kesh Vs TPDDL) Page no...... 5 of 23 were doing furniture work in the said premises earlier.
He admitted that he had reached the premises when the NDPL officials were still present. He denied that inspection was carried out in his presence. He stated that his signatures were obtained by the inspecting team by misrepresenting that they had come to inspect the premises as he had given an application for increasing the load. He stated that on 28.05.11 he had found the copy of inspection report in his premises. He admitted that at the time of inspection the connected load was found 9.630 KW being used for industrial purpose i.e. for stitching of upper part of shoes and jeans. He stated that meter had already got burnt on 25.05.11. He again stated that he had not used the electricity after 25.05.11. He denied that he had received the inspection report prior to filing of present suit. He stated that he had received a show cause notice on 28.05.11 which was lying in his factory. He stated that he might have attended the personal hearing on 06.06.11 in the office of TPDDL. He denied that he had deliberately got the meter burnt to escape from liability of dishonest abstraction of energy.
7) After petitioner's evidence was closed, the respondent company has examined two witnesses i.e DW1 Sh. Mahendra Singh and DW2 Sh. D.S. Dangwal in support of their case.
8) DW1 Mahendra Singh is Assistant Manager with the respondent CS/ M no. 376/11 (Hari Kesh Vs TPDDL) Page no...... 6 of 23 company who has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/A and stated that an inspection was conducted on 27.05.11 in respect of electricity connection bearing K.No. 42200125454 meter No. 10160000 by the duly authorized joint enforcement team of the defendant company with PCIPL officials at the inspected premises i.e. H.No. A333, Raj Park, Sultan Puri, Delhi. He stated that inspection report No. 196247 and action report No. 209091 dated 27.05.11 were prepared at the site reflecting the factual position. He proved the inspection report as Ex. DW 1/1 and action report as Ex. DW 1 /2. He stated that necessary photographs ( 6 in numbers) have been taken by M/S PCIPL which were proved as Ex. DW 1/3 ( colly). He further stated that the paper IR seals No. 126212 dated 27.05.11 had been signed by joint team and were pasted on the meter box to maintain status quo of meter. It was stated that the copy of IR seal is Ex. DW 1/ 4, however this document was not on record and, therefore, Ld. Predecessor of this court was pleased to observe that said exhibit was not on record. He further stated that at the time of inspection following irregularities were observed by the joint team: * A Load of 9.630 KW was found connected against the sanctioned load of 2.000KW for industrial category.
* Both meter half seals and hologram seals were found tampered. * After segregation, meter was found tampered. Insulation of neutral CT wire was found removed. Neutral wire at PCB was found re soldered. Violet colour phase CT wire was found disconnected from PCB.
CS/ M no. 376/11 (Hari Kesh Vs TPDDL) Page no...... 7 of 23 He stated that a show cause notice for dishonest abstraction of energy was prepared at the site and was given to user along with inspection report with a request to attend personal hearing on 06.06.11. He stated that the same was signed and received by the user at the site . He proved the copy of same as Ex. DW 1/5.
9) On being crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff Sh. Manish Makkar he stated that on the date of inspection he was not aware regarding consumption pattern of the meter in question. He also stated that he was not aware as to whether the meter was burnt. He stated that there was no number on the meter box at the time of inspection. He stated that he had not sent the meter in question to any lab for testing before issuance of show cause notice neither he had requested any higher authority to send the meter in question to any lab. He stated that before inspection the meter was already burnt. He admitted that the fact regarding burning of the meter is not mentioned in the inspection report Ex. DW 1/1. He stated that meter was segregated with the help of hammer and it may be possible that the meter was damaged due to use of hammer. He admitted that the meter in question has not been produced in the court. He stated that they had not called any public person from the neighbourhood to join the proceedings. He admitted that the consumer had lodged a complaint with NDPL on 25.05.12 regarding burning of meter and same was attended to by the zonal staff.
10) He further stated that it could be possible that at the time of CS/ M no. 376/11 (Hari Kesh Vs TPDDL) Page no...... 8 of 23 rectifying the grievance of burning of meter the seals of the meter were mishandled and removed by the zonal staff. He admitted the consumer complaint Ex. DW 2/A. He admitted that in the photograph mark 'C' the seals on the meter are shown to be intact. He denied that he had deposed falsely.
11) DW2 Sh. D.S. Dangwal Assistant General Manager of respondent company tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW 2/A and stated therein that an inspection was carried out at the premises of the petitioner and show cause notice was issued based on inspection report and action report to him. He stated that a written representation was received from the petitioner vide diary No. 14139 dated 08.06.11. He stated that , however since the reply was not satisfactory and the petitioner had failed to explain as to how the meter seals and hologram seals were tampered with, the consumption pattern of the consumer was analyzed for the last one year. It shows that the average recorded consumption was 131.27 units per month but the average computed consumption was found to be 1444.50 units per month. Therefore, the average recorded consumption was found to be very low and just 9.09% of the average computed consumption. He stated that this proved that the meter had been tampered with. He further stated that since the user was the beneficiary of the manipulated recording of the consumption, a case of dishonest abstraction of energy was established against him.
12) He proved the consumption pattern analysis and billing advice CS/ M no. 376/11 (Hari Kesh Vs TPDDL) Page no...... 9 of 23 along with summary as Ex. DW 2/A. He stated that on the basis of the material available a detailed speaking order was passed which was proved as Ex. DW 2/2 and the same was sent to the user on 27.06.11. He further stated that the inspection was carried out in accordance with the guidelines of DERC. He proved the final assessment bill Ex. DW 2/3.
13) DW2 Sh. D.S. Dangwal on being crossexamined by Sh. Manish Makkar advocate for plaintiff stated that he has no personal knowledge about the present case and had passed the speaking order on the basis of documents produced before him by the members of the raiding team. He also stated that he had not seen the meter physically before passing of speaking order. He stated that it was in his knowledge that the meter in question was burnt and a complaint regarding burning of the meter in question had been lodged with the concerned department. He stated that this fact is mentioned in the speaking order.
14) No other defence witness was examined and defendant's evidence was closed.
15) Final arguments were heard. I have heard Ld counsels for the parties and have gone through the case file and documents placed on record carefully. My findings to the issues are as under. I shall decide issue no.1 first.
CS/ M no. 376/11 (Hari Kesh Vs TPDDL) Page no...... 10 of 23 16) ISSUE NO.1
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a declaration, as prayed for? OPP The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff who had to prove that the bill in question was raised based on illegal inspection and , therefore, the bill be declared null & void. It is, therefore, essential for me to go through the record and the testimonies of the witnesses to ascertain as to whether the inspection in the present case on the basis of which the impugned bill had been raised was not as per law. The main defence of the defendant company is that the bill has been raised as per law since at the time of inspection the meter was found tampered with as the seals of the meter were not intact and the consumption pattern analysis had revealed that the average recorded consumption was only 9 % of the average computed consumption found connected at the spot. It is thus stated that the consumption analysis as well as the fact that the seals of the meter had been tampered with proved that the plaintiff had committed dishonest abstraction of energy. It is also stated that since he is the user and beneficiary of such dishonest abstraction of energy, no relief can be granted to him.
17) The counsel for the plaintiff on the other hand has admitted that he is the user of the premises in question and had himself made a request for enhancement of the load from 2 KW to 11 KW. At this request the load was enhanced on 02.05.2011. He states that he himself had lodged a complaint CS/ M no. 376/11 (Hari Kesh Vs TPDDL) Page no...... 11 of 23 regarding burning of the meter with NDPL officials on 25.05.2011 and at his complaint only the NDPL officials had visited his premises to attend a complaint on 27.05.2011. Thereafter they had themselves broken the meter, therefore, he cannot be held liable for tempering with the meter.
18) I have perused section 40 of the Delhi Electricity Supply Code and Performance Standards Regulations, 2007 which reads as under:
Section 40: Burnt Meter :
(a) In case the meter is found burnt upon inspection by the Licensee on consumer's complaint or otherwise, the Licensee shall restore connection in six hours upon receiving the complaint by bypassing the burnt meter after ensuring that necessary corrective action at site is taken to avoid future damage. New meter shall be provided by the Licensee/ consumer, as the case may be, within three days.
(b) The Licensee shall get the burnt meter removed from site/consumer's premises and test the same. If it is established, based on test results, that meter got burnt due to technical reasons e.g voltage fluctuation , transients etc. attributable to system constraints, the Licensee shall bear the cost of meter.
In case upon inspection of the consumer's installation and subsequent examination of the meter, it is established that meter got burnt due to reasons attributable to the consumer e.g tampering, defect in CS/ M no. 376/11 (Hari Kesh Vs TPDDL) Page no...... 12 of 23 consumer's installation, meter getting wet due to falling of water, connection of unauthorised load by the consumer etc, the consumer shall bear cost of procuring and installing the new meter. The consumer shall also pay to the licensee the cost of the meter less the depreciation at the rate of 6% per annum (or the rate approved by the Commission for ARR purposes from time to time) from the date of installation.
(c) In case the meter is found burnt and there is reason to believe that an official of the Licensee gave a direct connection, pending replacement of meter, a case of theft of energy shall not be booked. Consumer's complaint for replacement of burnt meter or the complaint regarding disruption in supply of energy shall be considered sufficient for this purpose. In case a consumer hinders replacement of burnt meter or does not intimate the licensee, the drawl of energy under such circumstance shall be dealt as per Part XIV of the Act.
19) As per Section 40(b) of The Delhi Electricity Supply Code and Performance Standards Regulations, 2007 in a case of complaint of burning of meter it is mandatory duty of the defendant company to remove the meter from the site. As per Section 40 (b) it is the duty of the licensee to remove the meter from the site and get it tested from the lab to establish based on test result as to what was the reason for burning of the meter. CS/ M no. 376/11 (Hari Kesh Vs TPDDL) Page no...... 13 of 23
20) As per testimonies of DW1 and DW2 for reasons best known to them the meter in question was never sent to any lab for testing . No reason has been given as to why the meter was not sent for testing to any lab. Since in the present case the consumer himself had lodged a complaint regarding burning of a meter, the defendant company should have sent the meter in question to a lab to comply with the provision of Section 40 (b) of The Delhi Electricity Supply Code and Performance Standards Regulations, 2007.
21) The meter in question has also not been produced in the court. The officer who has passed the speaking order has also admitted in his cross examination that before passing the speaking order he had not seen the meter physically nor he had sent it to any lab for examination, therefore, it is not clear as to how the concerned officer could conclusively reach to a conclusion that the meter had been tampered with.
22) As far as tampering and removing of seals and hologram is concerned the law on the point is clear. The term DAE is not defined anywhere except the DERC Regulations, 2002. Section 2(m) of DERC regulations, 2002 which reads as under: " Section 2 (m) "Dishonest abstraction of energy"
shall mean abstraction of electrical energy where accessibility to the internal mechanism of the metering equipment and some collateral evidence is found to support the conclusion that the meter has been caused to record less energy than CS/ M no. 376/11 (Hari Kesh Vs TPDDL) Page no...... 14 of 23 actually passing through it. It shall also include any other means adopted by consumer to cause the meter to stop or run slow (such as reversing the polarity of one phase of poly phase meters, changes in CT or PT, etc.)."
23) Similar provision is laid down under Section 135 (i)(b) of the Electricity Act which reads as under: "tampers a meter, installs or uses a tampered meter, current reversing transformer, loope connection or any other device or method which interferes with accurate or proper registration, callibration or metering of electric current or otherwise results in a manner whereby electricity is stolen or wasted;
24) The provision of presumption of DAE has been laid down found in the provision of Section 135(i) Second Proviso as under: "provided also that if it is provided that any artificial means or means not authorized by the Board or licensee or supplier, as the case may be, exist for the abstraction, consumption or use of electricity by the consumer, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is provided, that any abstraction, consumption or use of electricity has been dishonestly caused by such consumer.
25) Let me also discuss the relevant provision of law under Section 52
(iv) & (viii) of Delhi Electricity Supply Code and Performance Standards Regulations, 2007 since it is alleged that meter seals were tampered with:
(iv) The Authorised Officer shall prepare a report giving details such as connected load, condition of meter seals, working of meter and mention any irregularity noticed (such as tampered meter, current CS/ M no. 376/11 (Hari Kesh Vs TPDDL) Page no...... 15 of 23 reversing transformer, artificial means adopted for theft of energy) as per format given in annexeXI or as approved by the Commission from time to time.
(viii) In case of suspected theft, the Authorised Officer shall remove the old meter under a seizure memo and seal it in the presence of the consumer/his representative. The Licensee shall continue the supply to the consumer with a new meter. The old meter shall be tested in a NABL accredited laboratory and the laboratory shall give a test report, in writing, which alongwith photographs/videographs shall constitute evidence thereof. The list of NABL accredited laboratories shall be notified by the Commission. The Authorised Officer shall record reasons to suspect theft in the premises in his report."
26) In the light of above provisions of law. Let me discuss the evidence led on record by both the parties to decide the issues and whether the mandatory provisions of law have been complied with or not to prepare the bill in question and the inspection report.
27) Since it is a case of tampering of the seals and presumption of dishonest abstraction of energy. It is necessary to find out from the evidence whether such other evidence as may be available to the complainant is on record to prove that the consumer/accused was responsible for committing dishonest abstraction of energy. It is settled position of law by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in various cases referred and relied on by the counsel for accused and also in "Bhasin Motors (I) Pvt Ltd Vs NDPL reported as 142 (2007) DLT 116," referred by Ld counsel for accused that no case of dishonest CS/ M no. 376/11 (Hari Kesh Vs TPDDL) Page no...... 16 of 23 abstraction of energy can be booked only on account of one seal on the meter missing or tampering or breakage of glass window etc. unless corroborated by consumption pattern of consumer as per Regulation 26 (ii) and such other evidence as may be available.
28) As is clear from the definition of dishonest abstraction of energy under Regulation 2(m) of DERC Regulations, 2002 and provision of Section 135 of Electricity Act, in order to presume a case of dishonest abstraction of energy or to establish a case of dishonest abstraction of energy the complainant is required to establish that some artificial means for abstraction of energy are adopted by accused to have accessibility to the internal mechanism of the metering equipment and some collateral evidence is found to support the conclusion that the meter has been tampered with to record less energy than actually passing through it.
29) In order to presume a case of DAE as defined under proviso of Section 135 (i) of Electricity Act, the complainant/licencee is required to establish that consumer has adopted artificial means or means not authorised by the Board or licensee or supplier, as the case may be, exist for the abstraction, consumption or use of electricity.
30) A perusal of the file and the testimony of the witnesses i.e. the plaintiff as well as the members of the raiding team who have been examined as defence witnesses reveals that it is not in dispute that a complaint had CS/ M no. 376/11 (Hari Kesh Vs TPDDL) Page no...... 17 of 23 been lodged with NDPL officials on 25.05.2011 regarding burning of the meter by the plaintiff. It is also admitted by DW1 that the meter in question was already burnt before the inspection was carried out. The witnesses have also admitted in their crossexamination that the meter had been segregated with the help of a hammer by the NDPL officials and it may be possible that the meter was damaged due to use of hammer. DW1 has also categorically admitted in his crossexamination that it could be possible that at the time of rectifying the complaint of burning of meter the seals of the meter had been mishandled and removed by the zonal staff. He admitted the complaint lodged by the consumer as Ex. DW 2/A. The witness also admitted that as per photograph mark 'C' the seals of the meter are shown to be intact. DW1 Sh. Mahender Singh and DW2 Sh. D.S. Dangwal had admitted that the meter in question had not been sent to any lab for examination. DW2 has also admitted that he had not seen the meter physically before passing of speaking order, though it was in his knowledge that the meter in question was burnt and a complaint regarding burning of meter had been lodged with the concerned department .
31) In view of the above said along with fact that the defence witnesses have admitted in their crossexamination that the meter in question had been segregated with the help of hammer and it can be possible that the marks of damage and seals were also damaged due to repeated use of hammer to segregate the meter, the statement of the plaintiff that the NDPL official had broken the meter into pieces, the defendant company could not have CS/ M no. 376/11 (Hari Kesh Vs TPDDL) Page no...... 18 of 23 concluded that there was dishonest abstraction of energy due to absence of meter seals and hologram and damage marks on the meter.
32) Further, no sample seal or monogram of the seals have been filed on record by the complainant for comparison of the seals which were allegedly found to be tampered to prove the tampering of the seals.
33) As far as the consumption pattern analysis is concerned. The consumption pattern by itself cannot lead to inference of dishonest abstraction of energy in this case, because there is no corroboration of physical tampering of the meter or use of any artificial means to prove that the meter was recording lesser units than the actual consumed unit. Further there is no evidence to show that any device had been used to disturb the internal mechanism to slow down the meter or to record lesser units than the actual consumption which is mandatory requirement of law. Thus, the consumption pattern cannot by itself constitute evidence of dishonest abstraction of energy. I find support in my opinion from the judgment of Col'. R.K. Nayyar Vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 140 (2007) DLT 257" wherein it has been laid down that:
".....This court is of the view that an inference of fraudulent abstraction of energy must be based on some conclusive evidence that the user has tampered with the meter in a manner that has enabled such user to either CS/ M no. 376/11 (Hari Kesh Vs TPDDL) Page no...... 19 of 23 slow down the meter or make it record lesser units of consumption. There must be a link established between the physical evidence of tampering noticed on inspection and the consumer. An inference of FAE should not be permitted to be drawn on the mere fact that a meter had been found with broken seals. An electricity meter is admittedly not kept enclosed in a tamper proof environment under the lock and key, with one key retained by the consumer and the other by the supplier of the electricity. If a meter is kept in a location that permits any person intending to do mischief to have easy access to the meter, then to fasten the charge of FAE on the consumer in the event of the meter being found tampered, is not being reasonable or even realistic. Something more would have to be demonstrated to infer an intention by the consumer to "fraudulently" abstract electricity. In this context it is necessary to emphasise that the analysis of consumption pattern cannot constitute substantive proof of DAE in the absence of tangible physical evidence of DAE in the manner explained above. In other words, the analysis of consumption pattern can only corroborate what is found on physical inspection which can indicate whether the consumer has herself or himself employed a device or a method to dishonestly abstract electricity. It will be open to the respondent, in the absence of any tangible evidence of DAE, to proceed on the basis of the consumption pattern to infer DAE "
34) Thus in view of the above discussions, I am of the considered CS/ M no. 376/11 (Hari Kesh Vs TPDDL) Page no...... 20 of 23 opinion that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving that he was not guilty of dishonest abstraction of energy by tampering with the meter box seals, meter terminal seals of the meter installed at premises. Thus I hold that the speaking order is null and void and impugned bill is also declared null and void. The issue No.1 is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant company.
35) Issue No.2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP The relief of injunction is a discretionary relief. The person who approaches the court for the same needs to establish that a legal right exists in his favour having corresponding obligation upon the opposite party. The plaintiff is however, required to establish that the opposite party is adamant to violating his existing legal right and needs to be prevented from doing so. In this case the petitioner has established that he has been making the payment of electricity charges regularly and an illegal inspection report was prepared based on concocted facts and an illegal bill towards theft of electricity was raised against him for a sum of Rs. 2,08,283/. He has established that he has never misused the electricity connection nor he has ever committed theft of electricity. He has also established that the he had given the complaint on 25.05.2011 to defendant company regarding burning of the meter and on 27.05.2011 in his absence the officials of the defendant CS/ M no. 376/11 (Hari Kesh Vs TPDDL) Page no...... 21 of 23 company had visited his house to attend the said complaint and had broken the seals of the meter in question and had also broken the electricity meter in pieces without any authority. The petitioner has further succeeded in proving that the inspection report dated 27.05.2011 was illegal. It is also established while deciding issue No.1 that plaintiff was not indulging in dishonest abstraction of energy during the inspection dated 27.05.2011, he is, therefore, entitled to the discretionary relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its employee, agents from disconnecting the electricity supply through K.No. 42200125454, C.A. No. 60004442475 installed at H.No. A333, Raj Park, Sultan Puri, Delhi for not making the payment of the bill dated 24.06.2011 which has been declared to be illegal and null and void. The issue No.2 is thus decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
36) Relief .
In view my findings on issues No.1 and 2, the plaintiff is entitled to grant of declaration as well as permanent injunction as claimed for. Accordingly the decree of declaration is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant declaring the inspection dated 27.05.2011, final assessment bill dated 24.06.2011 for Rs.2,08,283/ as illegal and null and void.
37) In view of above terms, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with no order to costs. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly. CS/ M no. 376/11 (Hari Kesh Vs TPDDL) Page no...... 22 of 23
29. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
th
ON 26 Septmber, 2015.
(SWARANA KANTA SHARMA)
ASJ (ELECTRICITY) NW
ROHINI :DELHI:(M)
CS/ M no. 376/11 (Hari Kesh Vs TPDDL) Page no...... 23 of 23