Delhi District Court
M/S Greazol Surfactant vs Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd on 29 March, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANJU BAJAJ CHANDNA
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
C.S. No. 81/11
Unique I. D. No. 02401C0151592002
M/s Greazol Surfactant
Through Sh. P.K. Jain,
17, Shivaji Marg,
New Delhi110015.
......Plaintiff
Versus
Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.
Hudson Line, Kingsway Camp,
Delhi.
(Suit original filed against Delhi Vidyut Board, then substituted by NDPL and
thereafter by the present defendant)
.......Defendant
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Date of institution of suit : 16.07.2002
Date of reserving the judgment : 29.03.2014
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 29.03.2014
JUDGMENT
CS No.81/11
M/s Greazol Surfactant Vs. TPDDL 1/9
1. The plaintiff has brought the present suit seeking relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from disconnecting the supply of connection no. MN/007/6169227 (L) installed at 17, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi, on the basis of wrong and illegal FAE bill issued by defendant bearing no 3112.
2. The plaintiff is the registered company and Sh. R.K. Jain is stated to be the proprietor of the same. The plaintiff is the authorized consumer of Industrial Power Connection No. MN/007/6169227 (L), installed at 17 Najafgarh Road, New Delhi and defendant has fixed its meter to record the consumption of the electricity. The sanction load of the meter was 1 KW. On 06.10.2001, a joint inspection team visited the premises of the plaintiff and carried out the inspection and found half seals missing, window glass broken and meter cover, body cover rusted. The plaintiff is running a chemical work and using raw material of sulfuric acid and other chemicals. In terms of the inspection carried out on 06.10.2001, the provisional theft/FAE bill bearing no. 3112 was issued for Rs.33,713/ and the said bill was received on 09.10.2001 by CS No.81/11 M/s Greazol Surfactant Vs. TPDDL 2/9 the plaintiff. It is the contention of the plaintiff that bill has been issued by the defendant with malafide intention to harass the plaintiff as plaintiff had already filed an application before permanent Lok Adalat for settlement of wrong bill for the period 01.12.1991 to 11.01.2001. The permanent Lok Adalat passed order for replacement of old meter on 15.05.2001 but the defendant has not taken any action to replace the old meter. The dispute regarding K.No. 6169235 was settled on 01.10.2001 and only after five days of this order, the inspection was carried out with malafide intentions. The plaintiff also moved to permanent Lok Adalat, wherein the order was passed for not disconnecting the connection subject to deposition of the 50% of disputed amount which the plaintiff has already deposited. The plaintiff has further stated about the inspection carried out on 06.11.1990, whereby inspection team suggested that meter needs replacement because body cover is badly rusted. It is the contention of the plaintiff that FAE bill issued by the defendant bearing no. 3112 is baseless. The plaintiff has also written several letters for replacement of old meter but no action was taken by the defendant. The letters have been mentioned as dated 14.10.1988, 28.03.1989, 16.03.1993 and 10.03.1996. The plaintiff had informed to defendant on CS No.81/11 M/s Greazol Surfactant Vs. TPDDL 3/9 04.11.1999 for replacement of old meter because outer glass of meter was found broken but the defendant has been sending the bills. The payment was made up to June, 2002. On the basis of these facts and circumstances, it is prayed that defendant be restrained by permanent injunction from disconnecting the supply of K. No. MN/0076169227 on the basis of bill no. 3112.
3. The defendant filed written statement taking preliminary objections about concealment of material facts by the plaintiff. It is contended that plaintiff has indulged in FAE by tampering the meter and load was found on the higher side and the supply was misused. The connection has been in the name of M/s Greasal but the same was used by M/s Greazol Surfactant and thereby plaintiff has violated the terms and conditions of the supply. According to the defendant, the report of joint inspection team has been valid and correct and in accordance with the existing facts. Further denying other averments of the plaintiff, it is prayed that suit be dismissed with costs.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were CS No.81/11 M/s Greazol Surfactant Vs. TPDDL 4/9 framed vide order dated 13.11.2013 :
1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?
OPP
2)Relief.
5. The plaintiff has examined PW1 Sh. R.K. Jain, its proprietor by way of affidavit EX P1 in support of its case. The witness has reiterated the averments of the plaint and has proved documents EX PW1/1 to EX PW1/3, the inspection proceedings and report dated 06.10.2001 and also the provisional/FAE bill. EX PW1/6 is the letter written to executive engineer on behalf of plaintiff dated 14.10.1988 and EX PW1/6A is the AD card. Letter dated 16.03.1993 is EX PW1/8 and EX PW1/11 & 12 are the AD card and postal receipt. The witness further relied upon the order dated 15.05.2001 and 12.10.2001 of permanent Lok Adalat MarkA and B. He further relied upon letter dated 28.03.1989 MarkC, letter dated 10.03.1996 MarkD and letter dated 04.11.1999 MarkE. The witness has been crossexamined on behalf of the defendant.
CS No.81/11
M/s Greazol Surfactant Vs. TPDDL 5/9
6. On the other hand, the defendant has examined Sh. R.K. Sharma, DW1 vide affidavit EX DW1/A. The witness has been the member of joint inspection team and he has proved the MTD (Meter Testing Division) report EX DW1/1. The witness has been cross examined on behalf of the plaintiff.
7. I have heard Sh. T.R. Sharma, Ld. counsel for plaintiff and given due consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, documents, evidence and nature of controversy involved.
8. My findings on the above mentioned issues are as follows: Issue No(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?
OPP
9. By way of present suit, plaintiff seeks to restrain the defendant from disconnecting the supply of K.No MN/007/6169227, on the basis of the FAE bill NO. 3112. It is the admitted case of the parties that plaintiff is the consumer of connection no. K.No6169227 with CS No.81/11 M/s Greazol Surfactant Vs. TPDDL 6/9 respect to electricity connection (light). It is also not disputed that on 06.10.2001 a joint inspection team visited the place and found irregularities with the concerned meter and in this regard the detailed report was prepared vide EX PW1/1 and EX PW1/2. It was found that there has been fraudulent abstraction of electricity on the part of the plaintiff and accordingly the bill EX PW1/3 was raised. The plaintiff was called upon to make the payment or otherwise to face disconnection of the electricity.
10. In the present case, the plaintiff has not sought any declaration or setting aside of the bill EX PW1/3 and the simple prayer is pleaded to restrain the defendant from disconnecting the supply on the basis of the bill. PW1 admitted during his crossexamination that at the time of inspection, half seals of the meter were found missing and window glass of the meter was broken. It was also found that load was on the higher side than the sanctioned load.
11. It is true that defendant is having the authority to check the condition of the meters installed at the premises of the plaintiff and also CS No.81/11 M/s Greazol Surfactant Vs. TPDDL 7/9 to check and control direct theft as well as fraudulent abstraction of energy/electricity. The proper procedure had been adopted by the defendant before issuing the bill EX PW1/3, as due inspection was carried out at the spot. It is evident from the inspection report dated 06.10.2001 that PW1 was not present at the time and representative of the plaintiff, namely, Sh. Randhir signed the proceedings. The plaintiff has not examined his employee Randhir to controvert the report of joint inspection team and further no personal motive has been attributed to the officials of the defendant or to DW1 for making a false report.
12. The plaintiff has stressed upon various letters written to executive engineer but these letters are found to be written in connection with K.No. 616923 (IP). Only the letter dated 04.11.1999, MarkE is written with respect to K. No. 6169227 but there is no evidence of sending this letter nor any receiving is shown. These letters do not help the plaintiff in any way. I find no ground to disbelieve the proceedings carried out by the joint inspection team at the spot and there is no justification to dispute the bill EX PW1/3 dated 06.10.2001. With respect to the proceedings before permanent Lok Adalat, the order CS No.81/11 M/s Greazol Surfactant Vs. TPDDL 8/9 MarkB had been passed only after the inspection was carried out. The order dated 15.05.2001 does not clarify that same was with respect to the K.No6169227 and otherwise also the orders have not been proved according to law and rules of evidence. I do not find any concrete or cogent evidence favouring the pleas of the plaintiff.
13. The plaintiff has failed to justify by any stretch of interpretation that the bill EX PW1/3 has been wrongly and arbitrarily issued against it and therefore plaintiff has failed to prove its case before the court. The plaintiff is accordingly not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for. The issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
RELIEF
14. In view of my observations with respect to the above issues, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Decree sheet be prepared and file be consigned to record room. Announced in open Court on 29th Day of March, 2014. (ANJU BAJAJ CHANDNA) Addl. Distt. Judge(Central)01, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
CS No.81/11
M/s Greazol Surfactant Vs. TPDDL 9/9