Delhi District Court
Shri Nirmal Singh vs Tpddl on 26 September, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA: ASJ ( ELECTRICITY)
NW DISTRICT:ROHINI: DELHI
Suit no. 118/12
Unique ID no. 02404C0099752012
Shri Nirmal Singh
Son of Shri Makhan Singh
R/o H. no. 17 Village Palla, Delhi110085
.............Plaintiff.
Vs
TPDDL
Through its Chief Executive Officer,
Grid substation Building, Hudson Lines,
Kingsway Camp Delhi110085.
...........Defendant.
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND DECLARATION
Date of institution : 30/03/2012
Date of reserving order : 19/09/2015
Date of pronouncement : 26/09/2015
Appearances
Sh. Sanjeev Chauhan ............Ld counsel for the plaintiff.
Sh. Ashish Yadav ............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 registered consumer of electricity connection bearing K. no. 43300124143 installed at his house no. 17 village Palla, Delhi36 which is domestic connection with sanctioned load of 1.00KW. CS no. 118/12 Nirmal Singh VS TPDDL Page no............ 1 of 14
2) The plaintiff's case is that he has been making payment of electricity charges regularly. On 11/08/2011 officials of the defendant company had visited his premises in his absence. It is stated that on 28/12/2010 plaintiff had himself made a complaint to the respondent vide complaint no. 186822 that the meter box was removed and there is joint in the service line. He has also mentioned that this fact is mentioned at the back side of the complaint. He stated that the officials of the respondent had fixed the meter box and had found that there was insufficient service line and had therefore joined the private cable with the service line. This fact is also mentioned on the back side of the official complaint. He further stated that he had not committed theft of electricity as alleged by the respondent company. The petitioner now prays that the illegal bill raised by the defendant company in the sum of Rs. 51816/ on the basis of a false inspection report dated 11/08/2011 be declared null and void.
3) Written statement was filed by the defendant company wherein they have refuted the case of the plaintiff and have stated that 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 at the house of the plaintiff was found tampered with when the site was inspected and a load of 10.186KW was found connected against the sanctioned load of 1KW. It is also stated that meter service cable was found tempered with and plaintiff had taken supply of electricity by tampering with CS no. 118/12 Nirmal Singh VS TPDDL Page no............ 2 of 14 the service cable by removing and cutting the service line prior to the meter to manipulate the actual recorded consumption as average recorded consumption was 246.28 units per month and average computed consumption was found to be 534.78 units per month. Thus, the recorded consumption was found to be low and just 46.05% of the actual 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 17/12/2012, after completion of the pleading of the parties following issues were settled: i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for 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 document Ex. PW1/1 which is his complaint with the defendant company dated 21/12/2011. He has stated in his evidence that he is the registered consumer in respect of electricity connection bearing K. no. 43300124143 which has been installed at property bearing House no. 17, Village Palla, CS no. 118/12 Nirmal Singh VS TPDDL Page no............ 3 of 14 Delhi36 and the sanctioned load of said meter is 1KW for domestic purpose. He further stated that he is a permanent resident of the aforesaid premises and has been using electricity meter for domestic purpose. He further stated that he has been paying the bills issued by the defendant company regularly. He further stated an inspection was carried out at his premises on 11/08/2011 and connected load was shown as 10KW arbitrarily. He had himself made a complaint to the respondent on 28/12/2010 vide complaint no. 186822 that the meter box was removed and there is joint in the service line. He further stated that defendant company had issued a show cause notice 08/12/2011 wherein he was accused of committing theft of electricity by tampering with the service cable and cutting the service line prior to the meter to manipulate the actual recorded consumption. He stated that he had appeared for personal hearing on 23/11/2011 and had submitted a written reply. He proved the copy of the same as Ex. PW1/1 and Ex. PW1/2.He further stated that without considering his representation the respondent had passed the speaking order but the copy of the same was never supplied to him. He stated that thereafter respondent had raised the bill of Rs. 51816/ on account of alleged theft based on illegal inspection dated 11/08/2011.
On being crossexamined by Ld counsel for the defendant company Ms. Shivani Sharma, he stated that the it is correct that there was a joint in the meter service cable but he was not taking supply from the meter service cable. He proved the bills paid by him from December, 2010 to June 2012 as Ex. PW1/D1 to Ex. PW1/D12. He denied that there was increase in CS no. 118/12 Nirmal Singh VS TPDDL Page no............ 4 of 14 his consumption after the inspection on 11/08/2011. He also denied he has committed theft of electricity by tampering with the service cable. He admitted that two window ACs were installed at his premises alongwith the other electrical gazettes. He admitted that the photographs markA1 to A13 are of his meter and premises. He admitted that he had received speaking order and bill. He admitted that on 28/12/2010 when Zonal staff of NDPL had visited his house for attending a complaint the meter box was found removed and there was a joint in the service line. However he stated that joint had been put by the zonal staff of the NDPL when they had come to attend his complaint .
6) On 26/09/14 the counsel for the TPDDL Ms. Shivani Sharma had admitted the document markA which is the complaint given by the plaintiff to the defendant company and in view of her admission in this regard, the counsel for the plaintiff had closed the evidence on 26/09/2014.
7) The defendant company has examined three witnesses in support of their case.
8) DW1 Shri Braja Nath Dey is Senior Manager with the defendant company who has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/A and stated therein that on 11/08/2011 he was one of the members of the raiding team when inspection was carried out at the premises of the plaintiff. The inspection report was prepared and was proved by the witness as Ex. DW1/1. CS no. 118/12 Nirmal Singh VS TPDDL Page no............ 5 of 14 He stated that inspection report was prepared at the spot. He further stated that during inspection it was found that the plaintiff was committing theft of electricity by tampering with the service cable. He stated that meter box was removed and the service line was cut prior to the meter to manipulate the actual recorded consumption. He stated that a total load of 10.186KW was found connected for domestic purpose. He stated that a show cause notice was issued and the plaintiff was called for attending personal hearing on 17/9/11. the show cause notice was proved as DW1/2. He stated that photographs at the spot were taken by Sh. Sonu from M/s Dev Photo Magic. The photographs were proved as Ex. DW1/3 collectively.
On being crossexamined by the Ld counsel for the plaintiff Sh. Sanjiv Kumar Chauhan he stated that no extra private or illegal cable was connected with the cut of service line. He further stated that when they had reached at house of the plaintiff and had knocked at the door, the plaintiff had locked the door of house and had removed the illegal wires. The witness was confronted with the complaint given by the plaintiff to the defendant company already markX. The witness after going through the same stated that the complaint was not shown to him at the time of inspection. He admitted that the private/illegal cable was not seized from the spot.
9) DW2 Shri Aditya Prakash Mishra tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW2/A and stated therein that on 11/08/2011 an inspection was carried out at the premises of the plaintiff by the joint team of the defendant's CS no. 118/12 Nirmal Singh VS TPDDL Page no............ 6 of 14 company. He stated that the inspection report was prepared by the said team. He stated that show cause notices were issued to the plaintiff on 25/8/2011 and 08/12/2011 which were as Ex. DW2/1 and Ex. DW2/2. However, the plaintiff had submitted a written representation on 21/12/2011 Ex. DW2/3 which had been received by the respondent company. He stated that the consumption pattern was anaylzed and it was found that it was 46.5% of the computed consumption. He proved the consumption analysis Ex. DW2/4. He also proved the copy of speaking order Ex DW2/5 which was prepared by him. He stated that a final bill in the sum of Rs. 51816/ had been raised as per DERC regulations which is Ex. DW2/6. The witness was tendered for cross examination but the opportunity was not availed.
10) DW3 Shri Sonu who is the photographer tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW3/A who stated that he is working as photographer with M/s Dev Photo Magic. He had accompanied the technical inspection team on 11/08/2011 when inspection was carried out at the house of the plaintiff. He proved the photographs taken by him Ex. DW3/1 (113 collectively). He also proved the CD of photographs Ex. DW3/2.
On being crossexamined by the Ld counsel for the plaintiff he stated that he has no professional diploma or degree in photography.
11) Vide order dated 31/08/2015 defendant's evidence was closed . CS no. 118/12 Nirmal Singh VS TPDDL Page no............ 7 of 14
12) Final arguments were heard. I have heard Ld counsels for the parties and have gone through the case file and documents placed on record careully.
13) It will be useful to go through the law on the point.
Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 reads as under: "Section 135 Theft of Electricity: Theft of electricity [(1) Whoever, dishonestly,
(a) taps, makes or causes to be made any connection with overhead, underground or under water lines or cables, or service wires, or service facilities of a licensee or supplier, as the case may be; or
(b) tampers a meter, installs or uses a tampered meter, current reversing transformer, loop connection or any other device or method which interferes with accurate or proper registration, calibration or metering of electric current or otherwise results in a manner whereby electricity is stolen or wasted; or
(c) damages or destroys an electric meter, apparatus, equipment, or wire or causes or allows any of them to be so damaged or destroyed as to interfere with the proper or accurate metering of electricity; or
(d) uses electricity through a tampered meter; or
(e) uses electricity for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorised, so as to abstract or consume or use electricity shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both: "
CS no. 118/12 Nirmal Singh VS TPDDL Page no............ 8 of 14
14) ISSUE NO.1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for declaration, as prayed for? OPP The present case is primarily based on the contrary stands taken by the plaintiff and the defendant company, as the plaintiff has stated that the cut in the service cable and the joint prior to the meter in question at his premises was not made by him and had been made by the staff of TPDDL who had come to attend the complaint markA and the defendant company states it was tempered by him. My attention was drawn to markA by the plaintiff and it was stated that this fact is mentioned in this complaint dated 28/12/10. He therefore states that this complaint proves that the joint was placed by the staff of TPDDL on 28/12/10. He, therefore prays that he could not be held responsible for the same and therefore no bill for theft of electricity can be raised against him.
15) The defendant company on the other hand stated that a perusal of photographs taken at the time of inspection in the year 2011 make it clear that the joint observed prior to the meter installed at the premises in question proved that electricity was being used by taking supply directly from the cut by bypassing the meter.
16) The plaintiff has relied upon the complaint markA which is CS no. 118/12 Nirmal Singh VS TPDDL Page no............ 9 of 14 admitted document by the defendant company. A perusal of said complaint however only discloses that it is a 'Consumer Complaint Form' which has been filled by the officials of the defendant company when they had attended to the complaint of the plaintiff.
17) On the other hand, upon visiting the spot to rectify the complaint, it was mentioned in writing on the consumer's complaint form mark A that when the NDPL officials had visited the premises of the plaintiff on his complaint, they had found meter box had been removed and there was a joint in the service line. Therefore, as per this report dated 28/12/2010 even on 28/12/2010 the meter box had already been removed and there was a joint in the service cable, whereas the plaintiff states that this joint was put by the NDPL officials on 28/12/2010 and that they had shifted the meter from one place to another on that day only. It will be important to mention here that there is procedure of shifting of meter from one place to another place and cannot be carried out without proper documents and permission.
18) A perusal of the statements of the witnesses as well as the photographs and other documents placed on record, and the consumer complaint form no.188322 dated 28/12/10, reveal that the consumer complaint form has different columns wherein the 2nd column mentions the nature of complaint. It specifies that the TPDDL staff had attended the complaint pertaining to no power supply /current leakage, sparking. Just below this column there is mention regarding the observations made by the team that he CS no. 118/12 Nirmal Singh VS TPDDL Page no............ 10 of 14 is deputed to attend the complaint of the consumer. A perusal of the observations made by the said team clearly shows that it mentions, "meter box ukhara hua hai, service line main jodh hain, meter box lagaya, laghbhag 20 meter one core lagagi "(meter box is removed , there is joint in the service line , meter box was affixed approximately 20 meter single core wire is required ).
19) It is thus clear that even on 28/12/10 when the TPDDL staff had gone to the spot to attend to the complaint dated 28/12/10 filed by the plaintiff , of which the plaintiff wants to take benefit of , even on that day the irregularities mentioned in the inspection report carried out on 11/08/2011 were found. The complaint dated 28/12/10 does not mention that the cable was cut by the TPDDL staff or any joint was put by them. It also does not mention that they had shifted the meter from one place to another. On the contrary, it is mentioned that TPDDL staff had fixed the meter box which had been found removed and had reported as they were duty bound to, that about 20 meters single core wire will be required to change the cable, since it has a joint.
20) Moreover, in his own written complaint dated 11/08/2011 plaintiff has himself written that he had informed the TPDDL officials that cable gets burnt frequently and therefore he had called the TPDDL officials in the year 2010. It is possible that cable was burning frequently since the use of gazettes installed at his premises consumed more load than the sanctioned load. CS no. 118/12 Nirmal Singh VS TPDDL Page no............ 11 of 14
21) The case of the defendant company is that the joint as shown in the photographs prior to the meter in question had been used for bypassing the electrical meter to commit direct theft of electricity. Therefore in my opinion electricity was being consumed in two manners. A part of electricity was being consumed through meter for few electric gazettes so that low units consumption are recorded in the meter. And with the help of other cable which has been used with the help of a cut in the service cable prior to the meter, the same was being used for running air conditioners installed at the premises in question . Admittedly, two air conditioners were installed inside the house of the consumer. The consumption pattern and the anaylsis placed on record does not reflect the load needed or used for running two air conditioners. As I have already discussed above, the plaintiff has stated that there were frequent incidents of burning of wires and sparking for which he had lodged a complaint on 28.12.2010. These incidents were thus possibly due to joint in the cable which was observed by staff of TPDDL on 28.12.2010 itself.
Therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim in the year 2011 in his complaint dated 11.08.2011 that this joint was put by the TPDDL officials when they had visited him in the year 2010.
22) The plaintiff has not been able to place on record his written complaint filed on 28/12/2010. It was essential for him to have filed his complaint on record to make it clear as to what was the nature of the CS no. 118/12 Nirmal Singh VS TPDDL Page no............ 12 of 14 complaint since onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff. Nothing is written on the backside of the Complaint Form as stated by the plaintiff.
23) Therefore it is clear that plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and it could not be proved that the joint in the service cable had been put by the TPDDL officials on 28/12/10. On the contrary it is proved that even in the year 2010 when TPDDL staff had visited his house on complaint of burning of cable, there was a joint in the service cable just prior to the meter in question.
24) Thus in view of the above discussions, I am therefore of the opinion that plaintiff has not been able to prove that he had not committed theft of electricity as alleged by the respondent company. He has also failed to prove that the bill of Rs. 51,816/ in respect of K. No. 43300124143 installed at H.No. 17, Village Palla, Delhi is illegal and be declared as null & void. Accordingly issue No.1 is against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant company.
25) ISSUE NO.2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for ? OPP Since issue no.1 has been decided in favour of the defendant and CS no. 118/12 Nirmal Singh VS TPDDL Page no............ 13 of 14 against the plaintiff there is no need to decide issue no.2 in detail.
26) Relief In view of above terms, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with no order as to costs. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
th
ON 26 September, 2015.
(SWARANA KANTA SHARMA)
ASJ (ELECTRICITY) NW
ROHINI :DELHI:(M)
CS no. 118/12 Nirmal Singh VS TPDDL Page no............ 14 of 14