Delhi District Court
Shri Arvinder Singh Arora vs North Delhi Power Ltd on 5 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SHRI GIRISH KATHPALIA,
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (HQs)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CIVIL SUIT NO. 164/2019
SHRI ARVINDER SINGH ARORA
S/o LATE SHRI GIAN CHAND
R/o FF87, MALL ROAD
KINGSWAY CAMP
DELHI110 009
....PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
NORTH DELHI POWER LTD.
THROUGH ITS C.E.O
GRID SUBSTATION BUILDING
HUDSON LINE, KINGSWAY CAMP
DELHI110 009
.....DEFENDANT
Date of filing : 17.01.2014
First date before this court : 29.05.2019
Arguments concluded on : 23.03.2022
Date of Decision : 05.04.2022
APPEARANCE : Shri Sanjay Dewan, counsel for plaintiff
Sh. Paritosh Singh Rajput, counsel for defendant
JUDGMENT
1. By way of this suit, the plaintiff being a registered consumer of electricity supplied by the defendant has sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from recovering a sum of Rs. 5,03,596/ under a bill raised against plaintiff and a decree CS no. 164/2019 Arvinder Singh Arora vs. NDPL Page 1 of 35 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.04.05 13:21:36 +0530 of declaration that the alleged inspection dated 23.11.2006 and the impugned demand of Rs. 5,03,596/ are null and void. Prior to filing the present suit, the plaintiff had sought similar reliefs by approaching the Delhi High Court through a Writ Petition, which petition was disposed of vide order dated 03.09.2012, "directing" (according to the plaintiff) the plaintiff to file a suit before the Special Court within two weeks. The present suit was originally assigned by my learned predecessor to the Special Court constituted under the Electricity Act, where the defendant entered appearance and filed written statement, which followed replication and after framing issues, the Special Court presided over by one Additional Sessions Judge posted the suit for trial. During pendency of trial, the Special Court (Electricity) requested for transfer of this suit for want of jurisdiction in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NDPL vs. Devender Singh, so my learned predecessor transferred the suit to the court of Senior Civil Judge (Central), Delhi who assigned the suit to the court of Civil Judge (Central), Delhi. But the Civil Judge (Central), Delhi recorded that the suit is above pecuniary jurisdiction of that court, so the suit was placed before my learned predecessor and retained on the board of this court.
2. Briefly stated, factual matrix pleaded by the plaintiff is as follows.
2.1 Plaintiff is a registered consumer of electricity through connection bearing no. 31400156733X (hereinafter referred to as "the subject connection") for non domestic purpose with a sanctioned load CS no. 164/2019 Arvinder Singh Arora vs. NDPL Page 2 of 35 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.04.05 13:22:32 +0530 of 11 KW, installed at first floor of premises no. 87, Mall Road, Kingsway Camp, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the subject premises"). In the premises no. 8587, Mall Road, Kingsway Camp, Delhi of plaintiff, there are four electricity connections with separate meters.
2.2 The subject premises were sealed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in compliance with order dated 04.04.2006 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the defendant disconnected electricity supply to the subject premises through the subject connection. Thereafter, on the plaintiff filing the requisite affidavits, the subject premises were desealed. As regards such desealed cases, the defendant issued certain guidelines for installation of temporary connections subject to certain formalities and charges to be deposited. But plaintiff did not apply for a temporary connection.
2.3 Plaintiff had constructed a single unit on plot no. 8587, Mall Road, GTB Nagar, Delhi. Tenant of plaintiff on the ground floor vacated the premises in the month of April, 2006 and sealing of the subject premises, followed by disconnection of the subject connection occurred on 04.04.2006. During the period when the subject premises remained sealed, the subject connection was never used by the plaintiff. From April, 2006, plaintiff started using the electricity connection bearing K.No. 31400245539N from another meter, installed for the first floor.
CS no. 164/2019 Arvinder Singh Arora vs. NDPL Page 3 of 35 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.04.05 13:23:04 +0530 2.4 The meter for the subject connection and the meter for
the other connections were installed in an enclosure in the staircase of the premises.
2.5 On 26.10.2006 at about 10:15 am, short circuiting led to fire and some blasts in the staircase regarding which DD no. 14A dated 26.10.2006 was recorded by the local police and the Delhi Fire Service issued certificate dated 22.12.2006, mentioning the source of fire in the meter board and the distributor. Regarding burning of the meter, the defendant was informed on 26.10.2006 itself.
2.6 In the said fire incident, another electricity meter in respect of K No. 31400245533H, which was installed by the side of meter in respect of the subject connection, also got burnt and was replaced by the defendant.
2.7 The defendant allegedly inspected the subject premises on 23.11.2006 and without any basis arrived at the conclusion that there was dishonest abstraction of electricity. Much later, plaintiff found that a show cause notice dated 23.11.2006 had allegedly been pasted, but on enquiry, plaintiff found a different notice in the records of the defendant.
2.8 In the inspection report dated 23.11.2006 of the defendant, it was recorded that a load of 27.105 KW was found connected as against a sanctioned load of 11 KW for non domestic purpose; that the meter was reported totally burnt due to fire and was CS no. 164/2019 Arvinder Singh Arora vs. NDPL Page 4 of 35 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.04.05 13:23:26 +0530 found disconnected; that the meter residue was found kept at other place in custody of the owner; that identity of the meter could not be confirmed from the residue as the meter was badly damaged; and that there was no damage to other compartments of the metering panel.
2.9 Plaintiff sent representation dated 19.12.2006, which was never considered by the defendant. On 24.04.2007 plaintiff went to the office of the defendant and on enquiries found that defendant had fixed a personal hearing on 25.04.2007 at 11:00 am. Plaintiff was able to get a copy of show cause notice dated 12.02.2007/13.04.2007, which was signed on 25.04.2007 and even the time of hearing was changed from 11:00 am to 14:00 pm (sic). Subsequently, the plaintiff also obtained a bill for Rs. 3,05,917/ on the basis of DAE (Dishonest Abstraction of Electricity) from office of the defendant.
2.10 By way of letter dated 11.04.2007 addressed to the defendant, it was submitted by plaintiff that he had applied for a new electricity meter on 19.12.2006 since the electricity through the subject connection was lying disconnected and thereafter the meter in respect of the subject connection got burnt due to fire, and plaintiff also requested the defendant an opportunity to be personally heard.
2.11 In the first week of May, 2007 defendant issued a provisional assessment bill for DAE for a sum of Rs. 3,05,917/ and aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court which was disposed of vide order dated CS no. 164/2019 Arvinder Singh Arora vs. NDPL Page 5 of 35 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.04.05 13:23:38 +0530 28.05.2007 giving liberty to the plaintiff to seek such remedies as are available in law and directing the defendant not to take any coercive steps till the Speaking Order was passed, as counsel for the defendant had stated that personal hearing would be given to the plaintiff on 11.06.2007, which would follow a Speaking Order within two weeks thereafter.
2.12 In compliance with orders of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, plaintiff submitted detailed representation dated 11.06.2007 but no personal hearing was granted to him by the defendant, regarding which plaintiff lodged protest vide letter dated 12.06.2007 delivered in the office of the defendant on 13.06.2007.
2.13 Thereafter, defendant did not take any further steps and neither called the plaintiff for personal hearing nor passed any Speaking Order, so plaintiff remained under impression that the case of DAE against him was dropped.
2.14 But on 17.03.2009, to his shock, plaintiff received show cause notice dated 09.03.2009 to which he replied vide his representation dated 25.03.2009 delivered in the office of the defendant on 30.03.2009, but no personal hearing was granted to him. Again on 08.09.2009 plaintiff received another show cause notice for personal hearing on 16.09.2009. On 16.09.2009, Sh. Pradeep Arora, uncle of plaintiff went to the office of the defendant and explained all facts with the request to mark his attendance but the concerned CS no. 164/2019 Arvinder Singh Arora vs. NDPL Page 6 of 35 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.04.05 13:23:55 +0530 official refused to do so. Plaintiff submitted representation on the same day.
2.15 Thereafter, plaintiff received a Speaking Order dated 19.11.2009 alongwith a Final Bill for Rs. 5,03,596/ on account of DAE, which amount was to be paid on or before 10.12.2009. In the Speaking Order dated 19.11.2009, the concerned officer denied that plaintiff had attended the personal hearing on 16.03.2009 and 16.09.2009. The alleged inspection report dated 23.11.2006 and the impugned bill of Rs. 5,03,596/ are null and void and not payable by plaintiff. Hence, the present suit.
3. In its written statement, the defendant denied the pleadings of the plaintiff and set up its version as follows.
3.1 On the basis of information, an inspecting team of the Enforcement Department of the defendant was constituted and it carried out an inspection on 23.11.2006 in the subject premises in respect of the subject connection in the presence of Sh. Sanjiv Kumar, a representative of the registered consumer (plaintiff herein). The purpose of the inspection was to ascertain if there was any kind of theft/tampering/dishonest abstraction of electricity. During the said inspection, the inspecting team noticed that a load of 27.105 KW was found connected as against a sanctioned load of 11 KW for non domestic purpose; that the meter was reported totally burnt due to fire and found disconnected; that the meter residue was found kept at other place in custody of the owner; that identity of the meter could CS no. 164/2019 Arvinder Singh Arora vs. NDPL Page 7 of 35 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.04.05 13:24:14 +0530 not be confirmed from the residue as the meter was badly damaged; and that there was no damage to other compartments of the metering panel. These factors indicated a deliberate and intentional tampering with the electricity meter and the inspecting team duly documented and photographed these irregularities.
3.2 The abovesaid irregularities noticed during the inspection created a prima facie case of DAE and accordingly the inspecting team prepared inspection report dated 23.11.2006 and handed over the same alongwith a show cause notice to the consumer/representative, who refused to accept the same, so the show cause notice was pasted near the meter board. In terms with the show cause notice, plaintiff was granted an opportunity of personal hearing before the Enforcement Assessment Cell on 28.11.2006, but neither the plaintiff nor his representative attended the hearing.
3.3 Thereafter, plaintiff filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and vide order dated 28.05.2007 the defendant was directed to give another hearing to the plaintiff on 11.06.2007, after which a Speaking Order was to be passed within two weeks, to be communicated to the plaintiff within one week and thereafter, plaintiff was at liberty to seek such remedy as available under law.
3.4 In compliance with the said order of the Hon'ble High Court, another opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the plaintiff before the Enforcement Assessment Cell on 11.06.2007 and CS no. 164/2019 Arvinder Singh Arora vs. NDPL Page 8 of 35 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.04.05 13:24:28 +0530 the same was attended by Sh. Praveen Arora, who also submitted a written representation bearing certain facts which were required to be checked. As requested by plaintiff, the subject premises were got inspected on 04.12.2008 by the officials of defendant, who submitted a report dated 04.12.2008, after which another opportunity of personal hearing was granted to plaintiff through show cause notice dated 09.03.2009 calling upon the plaintiff to appear before the Enforcement Assessment Cell on 16.03.2009, but neither the plaintiff nor his representative attended the hearing, though a written reply was filed by plaintiff on 30.03.2009. Thereafter, another show cause notice dated 08.09.2009 was served upon the plaintiff calling him upon to join personal hearing on 16.09.2009, but plaintiff again failed to attend the personal hearing, though he filed a reply dated 16.09.2009.
3.5 There is nothing on record to suggest that supply of electricity to the subject premises through the subject connection was disconnected ever. Plaintiff deliberately burned the meter to destroy the material evidence and manipulated the recorded/recording of the consumption and low consumption pattern by 7.46% to evade establishment of theft of electricity for personal gains, which constitutes an offence of tampering with the meter and theft of electricity. Consequently, a Speaking Order dated 19.11.2009 was passed followed by DAE bill of Rs. 5,03,596/ with due date of 10.12.2009 was raised against the plaintiff on the basis of tariff order. Therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed.
CS no. 164/2019 Arvinder Singh Arora vs. NDPL Page 9 of 35 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.04.05 13:24:42 +0530
4. Plaintiff filed a replication, denying the pleadings of the defendant and reaffirmed the plaint contents.
5. On the basis of pleadings, the Special Court (Electricity Act) framed the following issues:
(a) Whether the plaintiff is found indulged in DAE by tampering the meter as mentioned in para 1 of the preliminary objections of written statement? OPD
(b) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration of inspection report dated 23.11.2006 and DAE bill of Rs. 5,03,596/ and permanent injunction as prayed ? OPP
(c) Relief
6. In support of his case, plaintiff examined four witnesses while on behalf of defendant, three officers of defendant stepped into the witness box. It would be apposite to briefly traverse through the evidence brought on record.
6.1 Attorney of plaintiff appeared as PW1 and deposed on oath contents of the plaintiff's pleadings and proved on record documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/22. Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, an employee of plaintiff appeared as PW2 and deposed in his chief examination affidavit that on 23.11.2006 when he was present in the subject premises, some officials from NDPL visited and started inspecting the meters and electricity gadgets; and that after about 15 20 minutes those officials went away after noting down certain details on a piece of paper but without offering him any document for his signatures. Sh. Brij Mohan Dhingra, owner of a shop adjoining the subject premises appeared as PW3 and deposed in his chief CS no. 164/2019 Arvinder Singh Arora vs. NDPL Page 10 of 35 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.04.05 13:24:56 +0530 examination affidavit that on 26.10.2006 when he was present in his shop no. 89, he saw fire in shop no. 85 and 87, so he called fire brigade and informed the police, after which the fire brigade doused the fire. Sh. Rajiv Chhabra, owner of the shop opposite the subject premises appeared as PW4 and deposed in his chief examination affidavit that in the year 2006 he was President of the Kingsway Camp market; that under the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, first floors and floors above were sealed in April, 2006 and electricity supply of sealed areas was disconnected; that after desealing of the shops under the orders of the Monitoring Committee, officials of the defendant refused to reconnect the electricity supply and in a joint meeting, they gave a proforma as per which only prepaid meters could be installed.
6.2 On behalf of defendant, Sh. Kapil Kumar, the District Manager, Bawana of the defendant appeared as DW1 to depose on oath the contents of their pleadings and proved on record the documents Ex.DW1/1 to Ex. DW1/3. In his chief examination affidavit, DW1 deposed that personal hearing was granted to the consumer on 28.11.2006 but nobody attended the same and thereafter, opportunity for personal hearing were given to the consumer on 11.06.2007 which was attended by a representative of plaintiff, and thereafter on 16.02.2009 as well as on 16.09.2009 also personal hearings were given but none attended from the side of consumer; that he passed the Speaking Order Ex. DW1/3 on the basis of records. Sh. H.C. Sharma, Head of Engineering and Quality department of defendant appeared as DW2 and deposed in his chief CS no. 164/2019 Arvinder Singh Arora vs. NDPL Page 11 of 35 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.04.05 13:25:31 +0530 examination affidavit that he was a part of the inspecting team which inspected the subject premises on 23.11.2006 pertaining to the subject connection and during the inspection in presence of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, representative of the consumer it was found that the meter was totally burnt and disconnected and other than the compartment housing the burned meter there was no damage to the other compartments of the metering panel and that the meter residue was found kept at the other place in the custody of the consumer, all of which was photographed; that the inspecting team prepared inspection report, action report and show cause notice Ex.DW1/1 to Ex.DW1/3 and all those documents were presented to Sh. Sanjeev Kumar but he refused to accept the same. Sh. Sandeep Khurana, Assistant Manager of the defendant appeared as DW3 and deposed in his chief examination affidavit having prepared and served on the plaintiff the final bill Ex.DW3/1.
6.3 No other evidence was adduced by either side.
7. During final arguments, learned counsel for both sides took me through the abovementioned pleadings and evidence. Although no specific issue had been framed as regards jurisdiction of this court, during final arguments learned counsel for defendant raised this issue and in view of nature of the same, detailed arguments were advanced by both sides. It would be apposite to first deal with the issue of jurisdiction.
CS no. 164/2019 Arvinder Singh Arora vs. NDPL Page 12 of 35 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.04.05 13:26:02 +0530 7.1 Learned counsel for defendant contended that order
dated 22.11.2018 of the Special Court expressing lack of jurisdiction was not in consonance with the legal position, laid down in the cases titled B.L. Kantroo vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Limited, RFA(OS) no. 12/2008, decided by a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 25.09.2008; NDPL vs. Devinder Singh, CM(M) 451/2012 decided on 02.02.2016 by Hon'ble Single Judge of Delhi High Court; and even NDPL vs. Devinder Singh, Civil Appeal 20842 of 2017 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 04.12.2017. It was argued by learned counsel for defendant that there is implied exclusion of jurisdiction of civil courts under the Electricity Act, therefore this court lacks jurisdiction to decide the present suit.
7.2 On the other hand, learned counsel for plaintiff relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the cases of Gurdev Singh vs. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran, RSA 3933 of 2017 decided on 30.08.2017 and Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited vs. Kartar Singh, RSA 136/2021 decided on 03.09.2021 as well as NDPL vs. Devinder Singh, Civil Appeal 20842 of 2017 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 04.12.2017 in support of his arguments that there is no jurisdictional infirmity in the present case.
7.3 In rebuttal, learned counsel for defendant placed on record a copy of order dated 29.06.2021 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the SLP no. 69716972/2021 titled Gurdev Singh vs. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court CS no. 164/2019 Arvinder Singh Arora vs. NDPL Page 13 of 35 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.04.05 13:26:16 +0530 took a view that the points raised in the SLP required assistance of learned Attorney General of India, so notice has been issued to him.
8. Section 145 of the Electricity Act lays down that no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which an Assessing Officer referred to in Section 126 or an Appellate Authority referred to in Section 127 or the Adjudicating Officer appointed under the Act is empowered by or under the Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under the Act. Section 126 of the Act lays down the procedure of assessment of the electricity charges payable by a person indulging in or benefited from unauthorised use of electricity and Section 127 of the Act contemplates appeal which can be filed by a person aggrieved by an order under Section 126 of the Act. Another provision of law, relevant for present purpose is Section 135 of the Act, which deals with an offence of theft of electricity and the penalty that can be imposed for such theft; the dimensions of criminal jurisprudence and mens rea are crucial factors while dealing with a situation under Section 135.
8.1 In the case of B.L. Kantroo (supra), a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dealt with an appeal filed by the plaintiff, whose suit against BSES Rajdhani Power Limited seeking a declaration against a bill issued by BSES and the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the BSES from disconnecting CS no. 164/2019 Arvinder Singh Arora vs. NDPL Page 14 of 35 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.04.05 13:26:31 +0530 electricity supply, was dismissed by the Hon'ble Single Judge by way of rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 and 11 CPC, mainly on the ground that the concerned matter fell within the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under Section 126 of the Act, so the subject matter of the suit could not be decided by a Civil Court in view of Section 145 of the Act. The Hon'ble Division Bench, after analyzing in detail the relevant provisions of the Act, upheld the impugned dismissal of the suit, holding that any dispute about civil liability in theft cases is impliedly excluded from the jurisdiction of Civil Court in view of Section 153 and 154 of the Act, wherein the Special Court has got jurisdiction to determine any dispute regarding the quantum of civil liability especially in theft cases and the said Court can act as Civil Court as well as criminal court while conducting the cases before it. But in the present case, admittedly no criminal case alleging theft has been got registered by the defendant against the plaintiff.
8.2 In the case of Devinder Singh (supra) the circumstances in which the civil appeal came before the Hon'ble Supreme Court were as follows. A civil suit for declaration against transfer of an electricity bill to the plaintiff as illegal was filed, in which injunction restraining the NDPL from disconnecting the electricity of the plaintiff for non payment of the impugned bill also was sought. The Special Court, before which the suit was pending, dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, holding that it is the Special Court set up under the Act which would have jurisdiction to decide the suit. In challenge, the NDPL filed Civil Miscellaneous petition before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in which relying upon CS no. 164/2019 Arvinder Singh Arora vs. NDPL Page 15 of 35 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.04.05 13:26:43 +0530 the previous judgment in the case of B.L.Kantroo (supra) the Hon'ble Single Judge held that it is the Special Court alone which will have jurisdiction to determine any dispute regarding the quantum of civil liability in theft cases. In challenge through the Civil Appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus :
"It is clear from a perusal of the aforesaid sections that the Special Electricity Court acts as a Court of Sessions and has been set up to try offences that are committed under the Act. By no stretch of imagination can it be stated that a civil suit would be within the jurisdiction of such Court. We are, therefore, of the view that the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside."
8.3 In the case of BSES Rajdhani Power Limited vs. Ashok Kumar, ILR(2008) II Delhi 1317, the question crystallized by the Hon'ble Single Judge of the Delhi High Court was whether Section 42(5) and (6) of the Electricity Act, 2003 exclude the jurisdiction of Civil Court and a consumer has necessarily to resort to the machinery as provided under this provisions of the Act and cannot file a civil suit. The Hon'ble Single Judge, reiterating that exclusion of jurisdiction of a Civil Court must be construed very strictly, held thus:
"6. It is apparent that Section 145 of Electricity Act is not an omnibus Section which restricts the jurisdiction of Civil Court in respect of all and every matter that may arise concerning use of electricity by a consumer. Section 145 bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court only in respect of those matters which fall under Section 126 and 127. No other interpretation can be given to Section 145. Adverting to Section 42(5) & (6) of the Electricity Act, it is that these two provisions put an obligation on the distribution licensee to create a forum for grievance redressal of the consumer in accordance with guidelines laid down by the State Commission and an option is given to the CS no. 164/2019 Arvinder Singh Arora vs. NDPL Page 16 of 35 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.04.05 13:26:56 +0530 consumer to make a representation for redressal of his grievance to the forum and if he is not satisfied with the action taken by the forum then to approach Ombudsman to be appointed by the State Commission.
7. Section 42 does not provide that the jurisdiction of Civil Court shall be barred once the forum is created and comes into action. Rather, Section 42(8) specifically states that provisions of Subsection (5), (6) and (7) shall be without prejudice to the right of consumer which he may have apart from the right conferred upon him by these Subsections. If these Subsections had not been there, the consumers' only remedy for redressal would have been to approach the Civil Court. No other mechanism is provided in the Electricity Act where a consumer could go against the faulty bills. Thus where a bill is faulty, the consumer has an option that before approaching the Civil Court he may take resort to Grievance Redressal System created under Section 42(5). However, even after approaching the Grievance Redressal System, if he is not satisfied, he still has the remedy to approach the Civil Court for adjudication of his dispute."
8.4 In the case of Kartar Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court dealt with a situation similar to the present case, in the sense that no effort was made to prosecute the consumer before the Special Court, alleging theft of electricity, but the NDPL started trying to recover an amount, which led to filing of the suit; that no disconnection of electricity as contemplated by Section 135 (1A) of the Act was carried out, but assessment of the amount due was done. While referring to the previous judgment in the case of Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam vs. Jaswant Singh @ Jaibir, 2017(2) LAR 465: RSA 3933 of 2017 decided by the Hon'ble Punjab CS no. 164/2019 Arvinder Singh Arora vs. NDPL Page 17 of 35 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.04.05 13:27:10 +0530 and Haryana High Court on 30.08.2017, the Hon'ble High Court held thus:
"11. In Jaswant Singh @ Jaibir (supra), which was also a case of theft of electricity whereby the consumer had been acquitted by the criminal court, the issue was debated upon and eventually conclusion was arrived at once proceedings under Section 135 were initiated, the Assessing Officer had no authority to pass any order regarding the liability and the penalty. In case it is so done, it was held that the consumer cannot be left remediless and he can invoke the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:
"(1) In case the departments/officers/ licencee/supplier is of the opinion that a consumer has committed theft as defined under the Act, they/he initiate proceedings for theft under Section 135 of the Act, then the Assessing Officer has no authority to pass any order regarding assessment of liability and penalty against a consumer. If any such order of assessment/penalty is passed and purported to be enforced against a consumer by the department/licencee/supplier then the consumer has every right to avail the remedy of civil suit by challenging such order/demand raised by the department/licencee/supplier. In such a situation the jurisdiction of the Civil Court shall not be barred by virtue of Section 145 of the Act.
(2) If an unauthorized order of
assessment/penalty is passed by the
department/licencee/supplier, despite having alleged and initiated proceedings of theft, then the consumer cannot be said to have alternative remedies under Section 127 of the Act.
Therefore he cannot be denied the right of filing the civil suit against such an illegal assessment/demand/penalty notice on the ground that he can avail an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 127 of the Act.
(3) Since the Special Court cannot be initiated at the instance of the consumer and the civil liability as determined by the Special Courts has been restricted to be determined only against the consumer and only for the loss/damage caused to the department and even CS no. 164/2019 Arvinder Singh Arora vs. NDPL Page 18 of 35 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.04.05 13:27:22 +0530 without following the procedure of the Civil Court, therefore, mere existence of the Special Court does not by implication exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, in a case where the Assessing Officer/licencee/supplier has passed an illegal or unauthorized order of demand despite having referred the matter to the police or the Special Court for determination of the same."
8.5. In the case of Gurdev Singh vs. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran (supra) the appellant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court assailed order dated 16.12.2019 of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court passed in RSA 5697 of 2019, holding that under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, there is a specific bar under which the jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain the suits/proceedings in respect of matters falling under Section 126 of the Act is expressly barred and that even qua the final assessment order, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the declaration suit pertaining to final assessment done under the provisions of the Electricity Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 29.06.2021 held that the points raised in the Special Leave Petitions required the assistance of the learned Attorney General of India and notice was accordingly issued.
8.6 To recapitulate, in the case of B.L. Kantroo (supra) also the circumstances before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court were similar to the present case in the sense that on the basis of an inspection, BSES alleged that the plaintiff was engaged in unauthorized use/theft of electricity and sought to fasten financial liability, so plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration of the bill as void and a decree of CS no. 164/2019 Arvinder Singh Arora vs. NDPL Page 19 of 35 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.04.05 13:27:35 +0530 permanent injunction to restrain the BSES defendant from disconnecting the electricity supply; and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court came to the conclusion that jurisdiction of the Civil Court stands excluded under the Electricity Act, therefore, plaint was rightly rejected by the Hon'ble Single Judge. Relying upon the said judgment of B.L. Kantroo (supra), the Hon'ble Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Devinder Singh (supra) held that it is the Special Court alone which will have jurisdiction to determine any dispute regarding the quantum of civil liability in theft cases whether or not the allegation of theft is disputed and the disputed bill can still be challenged before the Special Court. In appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Devinder Singh (supra) set aside the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge, holding that the Special Electricity Court acts as a Court of Sessions, set up to try offences under the Electricity Act and a civil suit cannot fall within the jurisdiction of the Special Court. Admittedly, till date the abovementioned view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court remains not unsettled. As mentioned above, in the present case, no prosecution alleging theft of electricity has been lauched against the plaintiff, despite allegations to that effect in the Speaking Order, which allegations, in any case, remain unsubstantiated, as discussed hereafter. That being so, in my view the present suit does not fall beyond jurisdiction of this court.
9. Having held that the present suit is not ultra vires the jurisdiction of this court, it would be apposite to examine the rival arguments on merits of the suit in the backdrop of the issues framed.
CS no. 164/2019 Arvinder Singh Arora vs. NDPL Page 20 of 35 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.04.05 13:27:48 +0530 ISSUE NO. (a)
10. Learned counsel for plaintiff argued that there is no evidence at all to establish the allegation of the defendant that plaintiff was engaged in dishonest abstraction of electricity. It was argued that despite the admitted position of the meter having been found burnt, the defendant did not adduce any reliable evidence to show that it was a case of intentional burning, so the present case does not fall within the parameters of Section 2(i) or Section 2(m) of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Performance StandardsMetering and Billing) Regulations, 2002 which define "Direct Theft" and "Dishonest Abstraction of Electricity"
respectively, so admittedly the procedure laid down in Section 25 and 26 of the Regulations of 2002 was not followed by the defendant while raising the impugned bill. On the other hand, learned counsel for defendant argued that since the burnt meter was found shifted by the plaintiff to a different place and the inspecting team found the connected load much more than the sanctioned load, it was a clear case of dishonest abstraction of electricity.
11. The expression "Direct Theft" is defined in Section 2(i) of the Regulations of 2002 as abstraction of electrical energy either through bypassing the meter by some arrangement external to it or through unauthorized tapping of the supply from licencee's distribution network. There is not even shred of evidence on these lines in the pleadings and evidence of the defendant. To be precise, it is not even the case of the defendant.
CS no. 164/2019 Arvinder Singh Arora vs. NDPL Page 21 of 35 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.04.05 13:28:00 +0530
12. The expression "Dishonest Abstraction of Electricity" is defined in Section 2 (m) of the Regulations of 2002 as 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 actually passing through it, and it also includes any other means adopted by consumer to cause the meter to stop or run slow. Merely because the meter connected with the subject connection was found burnt and thereby stopped, it cannot be inferred that it is the plaintiff who burnt the same and that too with a dishonest intention.
13. In Speaking Order Ex. PW1/18, the concerned officer of the Enforcement Department of defendant, examined as PW1, arrived at the conclusion that the burning of the meter was deliberate act of the plaintiff for the reasons that there was no burning mark in the other panel compartment; and that there is no document on record to suggest the time when the fire was doused, though it was a fire of small magnitude. Admittedly, no forensic examination of the meter or its remenants or the other compartment of the metering panel or any other article of the spot adjacent to the spot of the burnt meter was carried out by the defendant in order to ascertain the magnitude of the fire and consequential inference as to whether the fire was a deliberate act of the plaintiff, aimed at stopping the meter.
14. The document Ex. PW 1/2 is a copy of DD no. 17A recorded by PS Mukherjee Nagar on 26.10.2006 that at about 10:45 am, an information vide DD no. 14A was recorded in the police CS no. 164/2019 Arvinder Singh Arora vs. NDPL Page 22 of 35 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.04.05 13:28:11 +0530 station regarding fire incident at premises no. 8587, Mall Road, GTB Nagar, Kingsway Camp, Delhi, on receipt whereof HC Rajender Singh with staff reached the spot and found fire tenders from whom he came to know that cause of the fire was short circuit in the electricity meter. The document Ex. PW1/8 is a communication of the Divisional Officer, Delhi Fire Service to the effect that on 26.10.2006 at about 10:34 am, the subject premises caught fire in the electricity meter board.
15. In his crossexamination, DW1 officer of the Enforcement Assessment Department of defendant stated that they had carried out photography and videography of the burned premises and the burned meter; that the photographs and video were in his official file when he prepared the Speaking Order, but now those photographs and video are not there, so cannot be produced in court. Those photographs and video would have been the best evidence in order to analyse as to whether the fire was a deliberate act or an accidental short circuit. It is nobody's case that those photographs and/or video have been stolen away from the office of DW1. Admittedly, as regards missing of such crucial pieces of evidence, till date no police complaint or even any departmental information has been lodged.
16. Failure of defendant to produce those photographs and/or video in such circumstances certainly calls for adverse inference against the defendant to the effect that had those CS no. 164/2019 Arvinder Singh Arora vs. NDPL Page 23 of 35 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.04.05 13:28:22 +0530 photographs and/or video been produced before the court, the same would have established that it was not a deliberate act of fire.
17. Even in the Speaking Order Ex. PW1/18, there is no explanation about failure of the defendant to produce the alleged photographs and/or video, which throws serious doubts on credibility and truthfulness of DW1, the author of the Speaking Order.
18. On the issue of photographs, even DW2, who allegedly carried out inspection of the subject premises, stated in his cross examination that he had clicked photographs of the premises after pasting show cause notice Ex.PW1/3. But on being called upon to produce those photographs, DW2 stated that the same could not be done. Not a whiff of explanation has come from defendant qua at least those photographs.
19. In his crossexamination, DW2 stated that it is the inspecting team which had arrived at the inference to the effect that burning of the meter was deliberate, but they did not lodge any complaint of electricity theft against the plaintiff. Rather, DW2 further stated that he did not even remember the number of meters found on the spot and could not tell as to whether two meters were found burnt. The inspection report Ex.PW1/5 reflects that the inference to the effect that the fire was a deliberate act was on the basis of no damage to other compartments of the meter housing panel and also that video coverage was taken. Failure to file video coverage showing no damage to the other compartments and failure CS no. 164/2019 Arvinder Singh Arora vs. NDPL Page 24 of 35 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.04.05 13:28:36 +0530 to collect the material from spot for forensic analysis shows that the said inference was completely baseless and arbitrary.
20. Thus, there is absolutely no evidence to show that plaintiff deliberately burned the meter of the subject connection, much less with any dishonest intention to stop the same from recording consumption. Therefore, issue no. (a) is decided against the defendant and it is accordingly held not proved that plaintiff was found indulged in dishonest abstraction of electricity by tampering the meter as alleged by the defendant.
ISSUE NO. (b)
21. Learned counsel for plaintiff argued that in compliance with order dated 28.05.2007 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP(C) 4090/2007, the Speaking Order was to be passed within two weeks from 11.06.2007, but the same was passed on 19.11.2009, therefore the Final Bill prepared on the basis of the same is liable to be quashed. It was argued that the show cause notices allegedly issued to the plaintiff were not proved by producing the authors in the witness box to explain the multiple cuttings in the same. Learned counsel for plaintiff also argued that the impugned Final Bill Ex.PW1/19 was not prepared in accordance with the relevant Regulations and in that regard, learned counsel for plaintiff also took me through oral testimony of witnesses of defendant to show that the entire exercise was fabricated and not reliable.
CS no. 164/2019 Arvinder Singh Arora vs. NDPL Page 25 of 35 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.04.05 13:28:50 +0530
22. On the other hand, learned counsel for defendant argued that plaintiff failed to produce any evidence to show that the subject premises were sealed by MCD and the electricity supply was disconnected by the defendant. It was also argued that multiple cuttings in DD no. 17A exhibited as Ex.PW 1/2 show that incident of fire in the meter remains not proved. Learned counsel for defendant argued that the incident of inspection of the subject premises was admitted by both witnesses of plaintiff, so it stands established. Learned counsel for defendant denied that the Final Bill was not in accordance with the relevant Regulations.
23. In nutshell, the case set up by the plaintiff is that in compliance with order dated 04.04.2006 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the subject premises were sealed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and electricity through the subject connection was disconnected; that after a few days the subject premises were desealed, but plaintiff did not apply for temporary connection in terms with the guidelines issued by the defendant; that on 26.10.2006 short circuiting led to fire and some blasts in the meter of the subject connection; that on 23.11.2006/28.11.2006 the inspecting team of the defendant carried out inspection of the subject premises and after various proceedings through multiple show cause notices, a Speaking Order and a Final Bill, impugned in this suit were passed. On the other hand, the case set up by the defendant is that plaintiff deliberately burned the meter in order to stop its reading, which led to further proceedings in the form of show cause notices culminating into a Speaking Order and a Final Bill.
CS no. 164/2019 Arvinder Singh Arora vs. NDPL Page 26 of 35 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.04.05 13:29:03 +0530
24. The factum of sealing of the subject premises as well as burning of the meter of the subject connection were not disputed by the defendant in the written statement. Besides, the document Ex. PW1/1 is a letter dated 12.04.2006 issued by the Assistant Engineer (Building), Civil Lines Zone, MCD regarding desealing of the premises no. 87, Mall Road, Kingsway Camp, Delhi, first floor whereof is the subject premises. As regards burning of the meter of the subject connection, the above findings on issue no. (a) have already been recorded that the said burning of the meter was not a deliberate act of the plaintiff.
25. At this stage, it would be necessary to traverse through the show cause notices allegedly issued to the plaintiff by the defendant, which followed the Speaking Order and the Final Bill.
26. The first show cause notice dated 23.11.2006, allegedly issued to the plaintiff is Ex.PW1/3, which was tendered in evidence by plaintiff/PW1 and authenticated by DW2 stating that contents of the same were in the handwriting of Sh. Vipin Goel, but he (DW2) could not say whether the same was prepared at the time of inspection on the spot and also that he was not aware about change of date mentioned in portion circled X on Ex. PW1/3. The portion circled X in Ex.PW1/3 bears certain overwriting on the date granted to the plaintiff for personal hearing. The said overwriting of date for personal hearing becomes more clear through the document Ex.PW1/D1 proved by DW2 in crossexamination, stating that CS no. 164/2019 Arvinder Singh Arora vs. NDPL Page 27 of 35 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.04.05 13:29:18 +0530 Ex.PW1/D1 is the carbon copy of original show cause notice Ex.PW1/3. The document Ex.PW1/3 mentions the date granted to the plaintiff for personal hearing as 08.12.2006 while the document Ex.PW1/D1 mentions the said date as 28.11.2006. There is not even a whiff of explanation from the side of defendant regarding this discrepancy in Ex.PW1/3 and its copy Ex.PW1/D1, which creates suspicion about truthfulness of the case set up by the defendant qua the show cause notice.
27. Further as mentioned above, DW2 stated in his cross examination that he had clicked photographs of the premises after pasting the show cause notice Ex. PW1/3 on one of the walls of the subject premises, but he could not produce those photographs. DW2 admitted that apart from his oral testimony, there is no evidence to show that the show cause notice Ex.PW1/3 was prepared on the spot or was pasted there.
28. Genuineness of show cause notice Ex.PW1/3 also becomes suspect for the reason that according to defendant the notice was pasted on the wall, but reverse side of the notice bears certain handwritten endorsements, on some of which white fluid was found to have been applied. In his crossexamination, DW2 stated that he is not aware as to who had written on the reverse side of Ex.PW1/3 and who had applied white fluid. Plaintiff in his crossexamination as PW1 stated that he had found the show cause notice lying on floor CS no. 164/2019 Arvinder Singh Arora vs. NDPL Page 28 of 35 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.04.05 13:29:28 +0530
29. The document Ex.PW1/7 is the reply dated 19.12.2006 to the show cause notice, in which plaintiff described the abovementioned circumstances regarding sealing of the subject premises, burning of the meter of the subject connection and his having not sought reconnection. In other words, on 19.12.2006, defendant had complete particulars in the form of show cause notice and reply. Vide Section 26 of the Regulations of 2002, within four days of reply to the show cause notice, plaintiff ought to have been given a personal hearing and thereafter within fifteen days a Speaking Order ought to have been passed. But the Speaking Order Ex.PW1/18 was passed much belatedly on 21.11.2009. There is no reasonable explanation for this extraordinary delay in passing the Speaking Order.
30. The document Ex.PW1/10 is a copy of the second show cause notice, bearing three different dates, viz. 12.02.2007, 13.04.2007 and 25.04.2007, calling upon the plaintiff to appear for personal hearing on 25.04.2007 at 02:00 pm. According to plaintiff, and rightly so, in the second show cause notice also there were changes as regards date and time granted for personal hearing. Subsequently, plaintiff received the Provisional Bill Ex.PW1/6 for Rs.3,05,917/ from the office of the defendant. In response, plaintiff submitted reply dated 11.06.2007 Ex.PW1/12, elaborating the abovementioned factual matrix and calling upon the defendant to cancel the Provisional Bill. On 13.06.2007, plaintiff submitted another representation Ex.PW1/13 as regards personal hearing to show his diligence. Thereafter, it was complete silence from the side CS no. 164/2019 Arvinder Singh Arora vs. NDPL Page 29 of 35 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.04.05 13:29:39 +0530 of defendant, so plaintiff reasonably inferred that the proceedings against him had been dropped.
31. But after about two years, plaintiff received third show cause notice dated 09.03.2009 Ex.PW1/14, calling him upon to attend the personal hearing on 16.03.2009. But the same was received by plaintiff on 17.03.2009, so plaintiff sent reply dated 25.03.2009 Ex.PW1/15, again elaborating his abovementioned factual matrix. Again there was complete silence from the side of defendant.
32. Thereafter, plaintiff received fourth show cause notice dated 08.09.2009 Ex.PW1/16, calling him upon to join personal hearing on 16.09.2009. In response, plaintiff submitted reply dated 16.09.2009 Ex.PW1/17, reiterating the abovementioned factual matrix. It is more than two months even thereafter that the Speaking Order dated 21.11.2009 Ex.PW1/18 was passed much beyond time prescribed by Section 26 of the Regulations of 2002.
33. It would be significant to note that there is absolutely no explanation from the side of defendant as regards issuance of those multiple show cause notices, some of which bore multiple cuttings as described above and as regards failure on the part of defendant to pass a Speaking Order within time prescribed by law.
34. Coming to the Speaking Order Ex. PW 1/18, as mentioned above, the same is completely silent as regards the time intervals between different show cause notices described above.
CS no. 164/2019 Arvinder Singh Arora vs. NDPL Page 30 of 35 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.04.05 13:29:52 +0530
Further, as mentioned above, the Speaking Order Ex.PW1/18 specifically mentions that photography/videography of the inspection proceedings was carried out, but those alleged photographs and/or video have never seen light of the day.
35. The Speaking Order Ex. PW 1/18 recorded that in reply dated 11.06.2007 to the show cause notice, it was contended that some questions of facts required to be checked and the department was requested to do the needful, after which another opportunity of personal hearing on 16.03.2009 and 16.09.2009 were given to the plaintiff but he did not avail the same. The concerned officer who passed the Speaking Order simply narrated the contents of reply dated 11.06.2007 to convey an impression that those facts needed to be verified from the defendant department. But the said reply dated 11.06.2007 Ex.PW1/12 did not raise any new question of fact for which the Speaking Order had to be deferred. All those facts and contentions had already been raised by the plaintiff in earlier reply dated 19.12.2006 Ex.PW1/7. In any case, even if those contents of reply dated 11.06.2007 required to be verified, the same could be done within a reasonable time of at the most a week or so, followed by passing of the Speaking Order, instead of issuing fresh show cause notices followed by fresh replies, which exercise continued for more than two years, culminating into the Speaking Order dated 21.11.2009. Even after the abovesaid exercise of more than two years, in the Findings recorded in the Speaking Order, nothing new was recorded in relation to the so called verification from the CS no. 164/2019 Arvinder Singh Arora vs. NDPL Page 31 of 35 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.04.05 13:30:10 +0530 defendant department. This dents the credibility of the Speaking Order.
36. Another important aspect is that according to the concluding portion of the Speaking Order, the Final Bill was enclosed with the Speaking Order. But DW3 who allegedly prepared the Final Bill stated in his crossexamination that the Final Bill is always prepared subsequent to the Speaking Order; that prior to the passing of the Speaking Order, Final Bill cannot be prepared; and that he generally prepared the Final Bills within 34 days of receiving the Speaking Order. It is not explained as to how the Final Bill Ex. PW1/19, which was prepared subsequent to the Speaking Order Ex.PW1/18 could be enclosed with the Speaking Order. Most importantly, the Final Bill Ex.PW1/19 bears the date of printing the bill as 20.11.2009, which means that Final Bill was prepared prior to the Speaking Order dated 21.11.2009. That completely demolishes the genuineness of not just the Speaking Order but even the Final Bill, conveying an impression that the documents were fabricated by the defendant with preconceived decision to fasten liability on the plaintiff.
37. The Speaking Order Ex. PW 1/18 also analysed the consumption pattern in order to ascertain dishonest abstraction of electricity. Defendant filed printouts of two alleged consumption patterns, which were marked as Mark X1 and Mark X2, but the said documents on being put in crossexamination, DW1 stated that the same do not pertain to the meter involved in the present case.
CS no. 164/2019 Arvinder Singh Arora vs. NDPL Page 32 of 35 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.04.05 13:30:23 +0530
Apparently, the defendant tried to convey a false impression by filing consumption pattern of some other meter. As regards the consumption pattern, DW1 admitted that the document Ex.DW1/2 titled as Consumption Pattern prepared by him does not mention the meter reading summary on the basis whereof the consumption pattern was prepared. Ex.DW1/2 also bears certain interpolations in hand, for which there is no explanation. Thus, the actual Consumption Pattern, if any, analysed by the concerned officer who wrote the Speaking Order has never seen light of the day.
38. Coming to the impugned Final Bill Ex.PW 1/19, there are three vital documents, namely the provisional bill Ex. PW 1/6, the calculation sheet Ex. PW 1/11 and the Final Bill Ex. PW 1/19 admittedly raised by the defendant on the plaintiff pertaining to the subject connection.
39. The provisional bill Ex.PW 1/6 and the calculation sheet Ex. PW1/11 reflect the billing period to be six months, which is in consonance with Section 26(iv) of the Regulations of 2002. But the Final Bill Ex. PW 1/19 which is impugned in the present suit is for a period of one year (November, 2005 to November, 2006) and that is on the basis of Section 52(7) of the Regulations of 2007. The Regulations of 2007 would have been applicable had the inspection been carried out prior to 18.04.2007 when those Regulations were notified. In other words, the impugned Final Bill Ex. PW 1/19 is not in accordance with law.
CS no. 164/2019 Arvinder Singh Arora vs. NDPL Page 33 of 35 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.04.05 13:30:42 +0530
40. Further, in his crossexamination DW3 stated that the Final Bill was prepared by him only on the basis of load and not on the basis of units consumed. But that is contrary to the impugned Final Bill Ex. PW 1/19, which was clearly prepared on the basis of units consumed and not the load.
41. Even as regards load, according to Section 2 (f) of the Regulations of 2002, only the heating or cooling use of the apparatus/loads shall be taken into account as per prevailing season, which is specified to be 01st April to 30th September for cooling use and 01st October to 31st March for heating use. In the present case, the inspection having been carried out on 23.11.2006, the air conditioners could not be counted for arriving at the connected load. Moreover, apparently no investigation was carried out by the defendant despite such prolonged and repeated exercise of show cause notices to ascertain truthfulness of plaintiff's stand that almost half those air conditioners were only the dummy air conditioners without any outdoor unit.
42. Thence, neither the inspection report, nor the show cause notices nor the Speaking Order nor even the impugned Final Bill inspire confidence.
43. In view of above discussion, issue no. (b) is decided in favour of plaintiff and it is accordingly held proved that plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration that the inspection report dated CS no. 164/2019 Arvinder Singh Arora vs. NDPL Page 34 of 35 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.04.05 13:30:56 +0530 23.11.2006 and DAE Bill of Rs. 5,03,596/ is null and void and consequently, plaintiff is entitled to the injunction as prayed.
ISSUE NO. (c) (RELIEF)
44. In view of above findings, the suit is decreed with cost in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant for declaration thereby declaring the alleged inspection dated 23.11.2006 and the impugned demand/Final Bill of Rs. 5,03,596/ with due date 10.12.2009 in respect of electricity connection bearing K. No. 31400156733X installed at premises no. 8587, Mall Road, GTB Nagar, Delhi as null and void and not payable by plaintiff, and for permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendant, its agents, servants, employees, associates etc. from recovering the said amount of Rs. 5,03,596/ from plaintiff raised against connection bearing K.No. 31400156733X installed at premises no. 8587, Mall Road, GTB Nagar, Delhi.
45. Decree sheet be accordingly drawn and file be consigned to records. Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date:
2022.04.05 Announced in the open court on 13:19:36 +0530 this 05th day of April, 2022 (GIRISH KATHPALIA) Principal District & Sessions Judge (HQs) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS no. 164/2019 Arvinder Singh Arora vs. NDPL Page 35 of 35 pages