Delhi District Court
Hem Chand Gupta vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd on 5 November, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI HIMANSHU RAMAN SINGH,
CIVIL JUDGE01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, DELHI
Old Case No.175/14
New Suit No.598159/16
Unique Case ID No.02401C0066832000
Hem Chand Gupta
S/o Sh. P. L. Gupta,
R/o RZA32, Vijay Enclave,
New Delhi110045. ... Plaintiff
Versus
BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place,
New Delhi110019. ... Defendant
Date of institution of suit : 13.01.2000
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 05.11.2016
SUIT FOR PERPETUAL AND MANDATORY INJUNCTIONS
JUDGMENT
1. The brief facts as gleaned from the plaint are that the plaintiff is living at the above mentioned address and is running a business of "Tent House" in the name and style of "Shri Balaji Tent House" on the ground floor of RZA32, Vijay Enclave, New Delhi110045.
Hem Chand Gupta vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Suit No.598159/16 Page 1 of 332. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had a domestic electric connection bearing K. No.1222870 in the above mentioned address, which was installed in the year 1989 and the same was disconnected in the year 1997 because nonpayment as the plaintiff was not residing at that period at the above mentioned address.
3. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff installed welding and drilling machines on the ground floor of the above mentioned address some time in October 1999 and he also applied to the defendant to convert his disconnected domestic meter into a commercial meter with the request to increase the load of electricity supply as well. As per the direction of the defendant the plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs.5,320/, vide receipt no.12421 dated 01.10.1999. After depositing this amount the defendant restored the electricity connection and accordingly converted the same from domestic to commercial by permitting the increased load and sanction as required by the plaintiff i.e. 3.5 K.W. Plaintiff also have a generator in the above mentioned property to meet the requirement of power. After the reconnection of electricity connection the defendant did not issue any electricity bill inspite of repeated requests and personal visits of the plaintiff at the office of the defendant.
Hem Chand Gupta vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Suit No.598159/16 Page 2 of 334. It is further the case of the plaintiff that on 10.01.2000 one raiding party organized by the defendant came in the area of Vijay Enclave to check the theft of the electricity by the residents of the area. The raiding party visited the premises of the plaintiff and they were interested in some gratus but on refusal the raiding party took the photographs of the wire, which was lying on the terrace of the above mentioned property and was connected with the generator for the supply of the electricity to the different parts of the above mentioned property. The raiding party also took photographs of the several other houses from the terrace of the plaintiff's premises. The raiding party involved the plaintiff in the theft of electricity and issued a bill of Rs.1,12,287.98/ for the theft of electricity on 11.01.2000 which was received by the plaintiff on 12.01.2000. The raiding party/defendant also removed the electricity meter issued to the plaintiff without any prior notice and without issuing any receipt. Plaintiff seeks the following reliefs:
(i) Decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, their employees, representatives, etc. to create any false bill or any penalty or lodging FIR against the plaintiff in this matter.
(ii) Decree of mandatory injunction thereby giving the direction to the defendant to restore the electricity connection with immediate effect as a necessary amenity after installing the electricity meter and withdraw the false electricity theft bill dated 11.01.2000 for a sum of Rs.1,12,287.98/ and refund the deposited amount of Rs.1,12,287.98/ under protest on 15.01.2000.
Hem Chand Gupta vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Suit No.598159/16 Page 3 of 335. The defendant in its WS has taken the preliminary objection that the suit of the plaintiff is without any cause of action and as such the same is liable to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the view of the fact that the plaintiff has prayed for ancillary relief of permanent injunction without seeking declaration. It has been further stated that the plaintiff cannot ask to refund the money at this belated stage. The theft amount was deposited on 15.01.2000 and now in 2013 the plaintiff is asking to refund the money which is highly time barred.
6. On 30.09.2004, the following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor of this court:
1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable in the present form? OPD
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP
4. Relief.
7. Additional issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of court vide order dated 17.02.2014:
2A. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the refund of deposited amount of Rs.1,12,287/? OPP 2B. Whether suit of plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD Hem Chand Gupta vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.Suit No.598159/16 Page 4 of 33
Evidence
8. Thereafter, matter was fixed for plaintiff's evidence. In order to prove the case plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and he has not exhibited any document in affidavit.
9. Vide order dated 23.08.2005 PE was closed. Vide order dated 21.04.2015, PE was again closed and matter was fixed for DE. Defendant in order to prove his case examined Ms. Kavita Sharma as DW1. The witness relied upon the following documents:
Ex.PW1/D1 : Copy of theft bill
Mark A : Inspection reports dated 10.01.2000
10. DE was closed on 05.04.2016 and matter was fixed for final arguments.
11. I have heard the arguments at length and gone through the record carefully. Written submissions have been filed by both the plaintiff and the defendant. The issue wise findings are as under:
Issue no. 1 Whether the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable in the present form? OPD
12. The onus to prove this issue was on the defendant.
Hem Chand Gupta vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Suit No.598159/16 Page 5 of 3313. It is contend by the Ld. counsel for the defendant that this court has no subject matter jurisdiction in view of The Electricity Act, 2003. The relevant provision reads as under:
Section 135. Theft of electricity..........
...Section 153. Constitution of Special Courts.(1) The State Government may, for the purposes of providing speedy trial of offences referred to in sections 135 to 140 and Section 150, by notification in the official gazette, constitute as many Special Courts as may be necessary for such area or areas, as may be specified in the notification."
14. Reliance has also been placed upon B. L. Kantroo Vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., 154 (2008) Delhi Law times 56. In that case the plaintiff/appellant had filed a civil suit, seeking declaration that the bill issued by the respondent/defendant was false and illegal and had also sought consequential relief of injunction against disconnection of electricity supply. He had also sought a declaration that he was not guilty of theft of electricity and the inspection reports/speaking orders of the defendant were illegal and void. The said civil suit was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for want of jurisdiction.
"...we are of the view that any dispute about civil liability in theft cases is impliedly excluded from the jurisdiction of civil court in view of the provisions of Section 153 and 154 of the Act wherein special court has got the jurisdiction to determine any dispute regarding the quantum of civil liability specifically in theft cases and the said court can act as civil court as well as criminal court while conducting the cases before it."
Hem Chand Gupta vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Suit No.598159/16 Page 6 of 3315. The Hon'ble High Court vide judgment dated 02.02.2011, Super Auto Centre vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., RFA (OS) No.66/2011 also has taken a similar view and held as under:
"The jurisdiction of civil court is not barred but the power to try offences punishable under section 135 to 139 is conferred exclusively on the Special Court constituted under section 153 of the Act and the provisions of subsection (5) of section 154 specifically invest Special Court with the jurisdiction to determine any dispute regarding the quantum of civil liability in theft cases whether or not the allegation of theft is disputed, is still entitled to make such a challenge to the disputed bill before the Special Court, even in cases where no criminal complaint is filed against the consumer and the amount of civil liability so determined shall be recovered as if it were a decree of a civil court and it can act as civil court as well as criminal court while conducting the cases before it."
16. It has been argued that in the present matter a case of direct theft has been registered against the plaintiff on the basis of the checking/inspection report dated 10.01.2000, raised by the then government officers of the defendant. This is also affirmed by the plaintiff in his cross examination dated 21.04.2015 as follows: "I remember that on 10.01.2000 my property bearing no. R/o RZA/32, Vijay Enclave, New Delhi has been booked under the theft of electricity".
17. The second limb of argument of the Ld. counsel for the defendant is that the present suit is not maintainable before this Court in view of the fact that the suit praying for ancillary relief of permanent injunction Hem Chand Gupta vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Suit No.598159/16 Page 7 of 33without seeking the main relief of declaration is bad in the eyes of law as held in a number of cases. In case titled as Sarjiwan Singh vs. Delhi Vidyut Board, 110 (2004) DLT 633, dated 16.03.2004, wherein in the said petition the Hon'ble High Court while deciding the common question of fact and law that whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief in which only an injunction simplicitor has been prayed for in the wake of receiving electricity bills for sundry amounts, had dismissed the petition by holding as follows:
"Reference Nos. 1/1998, 2/1998, 3/1998, 4/1998, 5/1998 and 6/1998 are disposed of by holding that where a bill has been raised by the Electricity Department, which is prima facie legal, a declaration must be prayed for to the effect that the bill is incorrect or illegal before the plaintiff can legally pray for an injunction against the recovery made on the basis of such bills."
18. It has been argued that the plaintiff deposited the bill amount on 15.01.2000. The plaintiff after much after thought belatedly stated that the said amount was deposited under protest by preferring an amendment in the plaint in the year 2013.
It has been argued that the plaintiff failed to seek a relief of declaration to the effect that the bill was incorrect or illegal and instead sought a decree of recovery of sum so deposited by him which was also highly time barred. It has been argued that when the theft bill is not challenged per se there is no question of granting a relief of recovery of amount qua the said bill so deposited by the plaintiff.
Hem Chand Gupta vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Suit No.598159/16 Page 8 of 33I may gainfully refer to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case No. CRP No. 72/2006 in the matter of NDPL vs. Ganesh Aggarwal which laid down that where the bill is prima facie not legal then the suit for simplicitor injunction is also maintainable. It is settled principle of law that civil court has jurisdiction in cases where fundamental fairness of procedure is not followed.
19. In CRP No.72/2006 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 02.11.2006 noted that an exception which is carved out in para 7 of the judgment in Sarjiwan Singh vs. Delhi Vidyut Board, 110 (2004) DLT 633 is that the court must be satisfied that the bill is prima facie legal. The relevant portion is as under:
"7. In these circumstances the Order dated 25.09.1997 in Suit No.791/1997 does not disclose any error in the exercise of jurisdiction; CRNo.1186/1997 is accordingly dismissed. Reference Nos. 1/1998, 2/1998, 3/1998, 4/1998, 5/1998 and 6/1998 are disposed of by holding that where a bill has been raised by the Electricity Department, which is prima facie legal, a declaration must be prayed for to the effect that the bill is incorrect or illegal before the Plaintiff can legally pray for an injunction against the recoveries made on the basis of such bills."
20. In B. L. Kantroo vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., 154 (2008) DLT 56 (DB) also exceptions were carved out. The relevant portion is as under:
Hem Chand Gupta vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.Suit No.598159/16 Page 9 of 33
27. No doubt Electricity Act is a complete code in itself, but in the following cases, civil suit can be entertained even though the jurisdiction of the civil Court may have been specifically ousted. Where provisions of law are not complied with or the Forum or Tribunal does not act according to the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, the jurisdiction of civil Court is clearly implied. This was laid down under the following cases:
(a) if the court is of prima facie opinion that the order is nullity in the eye of law because of any 'jurisdictional error' in exercise of the power by the Commissioner or that the order is outside the Act - Shiv Kumar Chadha v. MCD, JT 1993 (3) SC 238.
(b) even if jurisdiction is so, excluded, the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to examine into cases where the provisions of the Act have not been complied with, or the statutory Tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principle of judicial procedure -
Secretary of State vs. Mask and Co., AIR 1940 Privy Council 105.
21. One of the exception is that jurisdiction of the civil court is not barred where provisions of the Act have not been complied with. Therefore, in view of para 7 of of Sarjiwan Singh vs. Delhi Vidyut Board and further clarification in CRP No. 72/2006, the onus is now cast upon the plaintiff to show that the bill is prima facie illegal. Therefore this issue can be decided only after appreciating the evidence led by the plaintiff and after discussing issue no.2 and 3.
Issue no. 2 and 3
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for Hem Chand Gupta vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Suit No.598159/16 Page 10 of 33mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP
22. The onus to prove these issues was on the plaintiff.
23. It has been contended by the Ld. counsel for the plaintiff that defendant has miserably failed to follow the core principle of natural justice. It has been contended that no show cause notice ever issued to the defendant. It has further contended that the defendant never handed over any show cause notice prior to filing of suit or given any civil opportunity of personal hearing before raising of such bill. It has been further contended that the plaintiff was never given opportunity to rebut the allegations raised by the defendant. It has been further contended that the bill was received on 12.01.2000 with direction to deposit the same on or before 13.01.2000 thereby violating the due process of law with arbitrary act.
24. Ld counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case titled as M/s Rakesh Rubber Industries vs. MCD, 54 (1994) DLT 156 (DB). The relevant portion is as under:
"2. The controversy is squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment dated April 10, 1991 in Civil Writ No.669 of 1990. We see no reason why the respondent should not apply that judgment to all cases, like the present one, where the liability of a SIP consumer to be reclassified and billed on higher tariff as LIP user, or the liability of a consumer to pay penalty for alleged misuse of electricity is disputed.
Hem Chand Gupta vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.Suit No.598159/16 Page 11 of 33
3. Following the aforesaid Division Bench judgment, we quash the impugned bills and direct the respondents to give to the petitioner an opportunity to be heard and then to take a decision on the matter in accordance with law, before proceeding to raise any bill for misuse charges or for consumption of electricity at the higher rates on LIP basis."
25. Ld counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case titled as J. K. Steelomelt (P) Ltd. vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., 140 (2007) DLT
563. The relevant portion is as under:
"21. This Court has in a series of decisions in Udham Singh v. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., 137 (2007) DLT 500, Col. R. K. Nayyar v. BSES, 140 (2007) DLT 257 (Judgment dated 18.4.2007 in W.P. (C) No. 2904 of 2005) and Smt. Jagdish Narayan v. NDPL, 140 (2007) DLT 307 (Judgment dated 18.4.2007 in W.P. (C) No. 10287 of 2005, etc.) interpreted the provisions of Section 135 of the Act read with the DERC Regulations. The relevant passages of the last mentioned judgment in Jagdish Narayan reads as under:
23. What is central to the definition of theft under Section 135 of the Act, which according to the respondent covers DAE as well is the element of 'dishonesty'. Therefore the mens rea or the intention of the consumer to dishonestly abstract electricity must be proved "conclusively" to bring home the charge of DAE. Therefore the requirement of "conclusive evidence" in terms of Regulations 25(iii) is consistent with the statutory mandate of Section 135(1). That can be established only by showing that the consumer was responsible for tampering the meter by some visible means. To external manifestations of tempering, as has been found in the inspections conducted in the present case, can only raise a suspicion of DAE. That suspicion will have to be made good by some tangible evidence of physical means of tampering before the presumption can be drawn that it was the consumer who tempered the Hem Chand Gupta vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.Suit No.598159/16 Page 12 of 33
meter.
25. Applying the above test, it has to be held that an automatic presumption of DAE on the basis of the external symptoms of tampering together with the analysis of the consumption pattern would not be a safe and error free method. Some other tangible evidence must be shown to exist. An accu check meter can be deployed to find out if the meter is in fact recording lesser units. The analysis of the consumption pattern in terms of the Regulation 26(ii) is merely corroborative and not by itself substantive evidence of DAE. The decision of this Court in Udham Singh v. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., 136 (2007) DLT 500 is to the same effect. In fact, the formula is applied in terms of Regulations 25(iv) read with 26 (ii) only for determining the penalty payable by the consumer once a case of either direct theft or DAE has been made out. The penalty formula cannot itself supply the proof of DAE or theft.
24. In view of the above conclusion, the other submissions of the petitioner about it not being furnished with the copy of the inspection report dated 13.12.2004 along with the show cause notice issued prior to the passing of the speaking order need not be examined. However, it should be observed that the burden of showing the supply of relevant documents to the petitioner is definitely on the respondent. The endorsement on the inspection report dated 13.12.2004 shows that the consumer had refused to sign. However, this by itself does not settle the issue since this endorsement is by an official of the respondent. The respondent will then have to show that a copy of this report was dispatched to the petitioner by registered post or any other verifiable means. Without the supply of the documents upon which the respondent is relying to draw an inference adverse to the petitioner, there would be justification in the consumer claiming that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice. In such cases, it will not be a valid defence for the respondent to contend that the petitioner should have asked for a copy of the report. If the petitioner in fact did not know that such a report existed then it is hardly surprising that it did ask for such a report. The decision of this Court in Harvinder Motors v. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 135 ( 2006) DLT 198 also underscores the importance of complying with the principles of Hem Chand Gupta vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.Suit No.598159/16 Page 13 of 33
natural justice.
25. Nothing has been brought on record in the instant case to show that the respondent had in fact dispatched the inspection report dated 13.12.2004 to the petitioner by registered post or otherwise. That burden was on the respondent which it did not discharge. The mere fact that the speaking order contained a reference to an enforcement case dated 13.12.2004 without anything more can hardly be construed to be a reference to the inspection of that date. The photographs too do not show whether in fact the inspection report was prepared and given to the petitioner.
Connected load alone cannot form basis for DAE.
26. The petitioner is also right in contending that the reduction in the consumption pattern in the six months previous to the inspection report dated 13.12.2004 was consistent with its application for reduction of sanctioned load from 78 HP to 20 HP. The explanation offered by the respondent that the petitioner had not followed up this application can hardly justify an inference of DAE on the basis of the reduced units. It is one thing to plead that the connected load is more than the sanctioned load but in another to say that in fact the connected load has been used throughout by the petitioner. This could be only verified by the actual consumption recorded in the meter.
If, as is indicated in the inspection report, the meter wiring is OK and the disc is moving in the right direction then the actual units recorded will reflect how much of the connected load is in fact being used. Therefore, merely because the connected load is more than the sanctioned load cannot lead to an automatic presumption that the entire connected load is being used by the consumer throughout the period.
Conclusion
27. For all of the above reasons, this Court finds that the impugned speaking order dated 24.12.2004 holding that the petitioner is guilty of DAE is unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside. Consequently, the demand raised in the impugned bill dated 11.1.2005 also would stand quashed. The amount paid by the petitioner pursuant to the interim order dated 8.2.2005 will now become refundable to the petitioner together with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of payment till the date of refund. The refund should be made to the petitioner within a period of 4 weeks from today and in any Hem Chand Gupta vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Suit No.598159/16 Page 14 of 33event not later than 25.5.2007. In addition costs of Rs.5,000 will be paid by the respondent to the petitioner within a period of 4 weeks and in any event not later than 25.5.2007."
26. Ld counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case titled as Kuldeep Singh Dhingra vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors., AIR 1992 Delhi 228. The relevant portion is as under:
"11. ....The Undertaking ignored them before issuing the show cause notice on the ground that there was no such requirement. It ignored them again after notice presumably on the ground that they had not been made in response to the notice thereby reducing fairness into something worst than a rigid, ritualistic abstraction where the victim has been lockjawed. It must not be forgotten that fair hearing, however minimal, is the requirement of administrative gentlemanliness. What has happened here is that natural justice which V. R. Krishna Iyer, J. described as "a brooding omnipresence" has been baried fathoms deep. It was observed by Lord Parker that good administration and an honest or bona fide decision require not only impartiality or merely bringing one's mind to bear on the problem, but acting fairly In re. H. K. (An Infant) 1965 AC 201. Unfortunately, by ignoring the representations made by the plaintiff, the study of which could have helped the defendants in taking a fair and balanced view, they have acted unfairly or unjustly. What could have promoted was thus frozen.
What should then be done?
Byles J. tells us in Cooper v. Wandeworth Board of Works:
(1863) 14 CB (NS) 180:
"I remember to have heard it observed by a very learned man that even. God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defence. "Adam (say God) "where art thou? Hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat:" And the same question was put to Eve also."
Let the defendants follow the laws of God, for they are the laws of man also. Opportunity shall be given to the plaintiff to make Hem Chand Gupta vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Suit No.598159/16 Page 15 of 33his defence, if he has any, and in so making it, he shall also be, in view of the peculiar facts of the case, afforded one hearing. In the meanwhile the defendants may remove the metering equipment etc. which may be required for investigation but shall see to it that supply of electricity is restored to the plaintiff within two days from today. Of course, nothing stops the defendants, not this order at least, from taking appropriate action after hearing the plaintiff in his defence."
27. Ld counsel for the plaintiff has also placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case titled as Col. R. K. Nayar (Retd.) vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., 140 (2007) DLT 257. The relevant portion is as under:
"20. Applying these tests in the instant case it is seen that the petitioner himself was hardly shown to be responsible for the tampering of the meter. Since it was he who complained having found the meter tempered, it was unreasonable for the respondent company to turn around and accuse the petitioner himself of tampering the meter. The documents dated 7.10.1998 hardly reads like an inspection report. There are no signatures of the team of officers who visited the premises. There is no signature of the petitioner or even an endorsement that he refused to sign. In fact, it is not even in the standard format. In the circumstances, the petitioner is justified in doubting if such inspection took place at all. Moreover, the presumption that is sought to be drawn in the present case is completely belied by the fact that, after the two inspections on 1.8.1998 and 7.10.1998 ( a fact that remains disputed) the I.G. (Enforcement) of the DVB had on 24.12.1998 asked for a reexamination of the case, a fact that is not denied by the respondent. Nowhere in the pleadings or even in the written submissions filed by the respondent is it actually explained whether in fact that re examination took place. By merely reiterating what was found at the time of inspection in the Speaking Order, the respondent does not add to the understanding whether the petitioner can be held to be guilty of FAE.
21. A strange argument is advanced that an amnesty scheme was commenced in 1999 for a specific period and that "simply Hem Chand Gupta vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.Suit No.598159/16 Page 16 of 33
informing breakage of seal of CT and meter box when the amnesty scheme was not operative does not absolve the petitioner from the case of fraudulent abstraction of energy."
This argument does not stand to logic. It certainly does not answer the point made by the petitioner that the respondent failed to take action on his complaint made on 18.6.1997. The only other ground on which the inference of FAE is sought to be made is the pattern of consumption and comparing the computed consumption with the recorded consumption. As already held, the consumption pattern by itself again cannot lead to an inference of FAE it would have to corroborate what is detected on a physical examination. An accu check meter could have been used to detect if the meter was recording lesser energy than it should. That, however, was not done in the instant case. Since it is not shown that there was some device or even any technique used to slow down the meter to make it record lesser energy, the consumption pattern cannot be itself constitute the substantial evidence of FAE. On the contrary in the instant case since admittedly the petitioner has informed the respondent since May 1992 that the use of a portion of the premises was no longer domestic but commercial, that factor was required to be accounted for determining if there was anything unusual in the consumption pattern. The fact that the meter was replaced in June 2002 and the petitioner was refunded a sum of Rs.1.92 lakh for the period from 2.7.1999 to 26.6.2002 also is relevant in this regard. However, the Speaking Order is silent on these aspects.
23. The petitioner has in his written submissions given a calculation of the amounts due to him and claims that a sum of Rs.10,48,364/ against K. No. 0803434 and a sum of Rs.2,76,841/ against K. No. 1333658 is owing to him by the respondent. This amount includes the interest he claims to have paid on the loans borrowed to make the payment. He has also enclosed a working sheet to his application which gives the details. It appears reasonable that the petitioner should be refunded the amounts paid by him in respect of the two impugned theft bills after adjusting the normal changes for actual recorded consumption, together with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of payment by the petitioner to the date of refund by the respondent. A direction is accordingly issued to the respondent to refund the aforementioned sum to the Hem Chand Gupta vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Suit No.598159/16 Page 17 of 33petitioner within a period of 8 weeks from today and in any event not later than 20.6.2007. Any delay beyond this period will attract a higher interest at 18% p.a. The respondent will also pay to the petitioner costs in the sum of Rs.10,000 within a period of four weeks from today and in any event not later than 20.5.2007."
28. Ld counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case titled as Ramesh Chander & Ors. vs. State of Delhi & Anr. 68 (1997) DLT 257. The relevant portion is as under:
"6. In Jagarnath Singh v. Krishna Murthy and Another, AIR 1967 SC 947, the Supreme Court held that existence of a tampered meter, does not amount to 'such an artificial means for the abstraction of electricity' as would make it an offence under Section 39 of the Act.
7. Reverting to the case in hand, the charge does not even say that the abstraction was dishonest. In order to frame a charge under Section 39 of the Act, there must be material on record to, prima facie, show dishonest abstraction, consumption or use of energy. Learned Counsel for the respondents has not been able to point out any circumstance coupled with the tampered seals indicating dishonest intention of the petitioners as contemplated by Section 39 of the Act.
8. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion and keeping in view of the above referred decisions of the Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that no prima facie case has been made out against the petitioners under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act and Section 44, which is a penalty provision. Accordingly, the charge framed against the petitioners is hereby quashed. The matter is disposed of."
29. Ld counsel for the plaintiff has also placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case titled as Jagdish Narayan vs. North Delhi Power Limited & Anr., 140 (2007) Hem Chand Gupta vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Suit No.598159/16 Page 18 of 33DLT 307. The relevant portion is as under:
"16. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. R. Metrani v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore, (2007) 1 SCC 789, Mr. Kumar submitted that the words "conclusive evidence" occurring in Regulation 25 (iii) had to be interpreted as requiring proof to be determined by conclusive means and not by a deeming provision by way legislative fiction. Referring to Regulation 25(vii), Mr. Kumar submitted that the requirement of handing over a copy of the inspection report to the consumer failing which having it pasted on the premises had not been adhered to in the instance case.
Finally, adverting to the consumption patter under Regulation 26 (ii), Mr. Kumar submitted that the formula for determining penalty in the event of theft cannot be applied unless there is in fact a discovery of theft. In other words, the penalty formula cannot be first applied to conclude that there was a case of theft or DAE.
24. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagannath Singh v. B.S. Ramaswamy, [1966] 1 SCR 885 is illustrative although there the Court was concerned with a criminal conviction for the offence of theft of electricity under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The approach to the requirement of proof of dishonest abstraction of energy is nevertheless relevant for the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the existence of artificial means for abstracting energy can only give rise to a presumption that there had been a dishonest abstraction. The supplier would still have to show that the consumer is responsible for such tampering. In the said case, it was contended that the existence of an open studhole on the meter was sufficient proof that dishonest abstraction of energy had taken place. In answer to that contention, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"A meter with an exposed studhole, without more, is not a perfected instrument for unauthorized taking of energy, and cannot be regarded as an artificial means of its abstraction. To make it such an artificial means, the tampering must go further, and the meter must be converted into an instrument for recording less than the units actually passing through it. A check meter affords an easy method of proving that the consumer's meter is recording less than the units consumed and Hem Chand Gupta vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.Suit No.598159/16 Page 19 of 33
is being used as an artificial means for abstraction of the unrecorded energy. To bring home the charge under Section 39, the prosecution must also prove that the consumer is responsible for the tampering. The evidence adduced by the prosecution must establish beyond doubt that the consumer is guilty of dishonest abstraction of energy."
25. Applying the above test, it has to be held that an automatic presumption of DAE on the basis of the external symptoms of tampering together with the analysis of the consumption pattern would not be a safe and error free method. Some other tangible evidence must been shown to exist. An accu check meter can be deployed to find out if the meter is in fact recording lesser units. The analysis of the consumption pattern in terms of the Regulation 26(ii) is merely corroborative and not by itself substantive evidence of DAE. The decision of this Court in Udham Singh v. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., 136 (2007) DLT 500 is to the same effect. In fact, the formula is applied in terms of Regulation 25 (iv) read with Regulation 26(ii) only for determining the penalty payable by the consumer once a case of either direct theft of DAE has been made out. The penalty formula cannot itself supply the proof of DAE or theft.
30. Ld counsel for the plaintiff has also placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case titled as Udham Singh vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., vs. 136 (2007) DLT 500. The relevant portion is as under:
"18. I would not dwell at length upon the difference which were introduced by Section 126, which in many respects, is significant from the provisions of Regulations 25 and 26. The latter enumerate a common procedure to deal with dishonest abstraction of electricity, ("DAE") and theft; the relevant load factors too are common. However, the Central Act creates separate mechanisms for "unauthorized use of electricity" which conceptually, and definitionally overlaps with "dishonest abstraction of electricity" and theft. For the latter, a separate mechanism has been enacted in the form of an independent adjudicating body, i.e. the Special Court. The Court has to try the case, and in the event of finding of guilt, can also determine Hem Chand Gupta vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.Suit No.598159/16 Page 20 of 33
civil liability.
19. A harmonious reading of all the provisions indicates that an inspection should preceded assessment that the consumer has indulged in DAE. The licensee is obliged to follow principles of natural justice, and grant reasonable hearing [Section 126(3) and Regulation 25(viii)]. Mere irregularity in meter seals, or breakage of glass, etc. do not authorize the licensee to issue showcause notice; the assessing officer has to observe the consumption pattern, before the personal hearing is granted to the consumer [Regulation 25(iv) read with Regulation 26(ii)]. The definition also envisons some collateral evidence of such objectionable behaviour; it enacts that DAE means "......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." (Emphasis supplied) The necessity of recording existence of such materials (collateral evidence) is reinforced by Regulation 25(iii) which obliges the inspecting team to record if "conclusive evidence"
substantiating the fact that energy was being dishonestly abstracted was found or not."
21. I am of the opinion that in the absence of any collateral materials, or conclusive proof, about DAE, the mere existence of an irregular seal could not have justified such findings. The inference led to "study" of the consumption pattern, which was application of a calculation formula, and its comparison with the billing resorted to. The facts of this case did not disclose any evidence in support of the conclusion reached by the assessing officer.
22. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is entitled to succeed. The impugned bill, and speaking order are hereby quashed. The sum of Rs. One lakh deposited pursuant to interim order of the Court shall be refunded by the respondent to the petitioner within six weeks. The writ petition is allowed in above terms."
31. Ld counsel for the plaintiff has also placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case titled as Hem Chand Gupta vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Suit No.598159/16 Page 21 of 33Kiran Mehta vs. B.S.E.S. Rajdhani Power Ltd., 2011 (121 )DRJ 611. The relevant portion is as under:
"8....It is argued that though in the inspection report, it is noted that photographs have been taken but the said photographs have not been produced inspite of directions from time to time of the Court in these proceedings and imposition of costs on the respondent for not production of the records. The counsel has argued that unless the respondent prima facie satisfies this Court of the basis of a case of direct theft, the petitioner cannot be permitted to face the prosecution or to pay the bill for direct theft. It is also contended that if the writ petition is dismissed, the interim order made in this writ petition and pursuant whereto electricity supply was restored to the petitioner would also disappear and the petitioner would again be left without electricity, even though the respondent inspite of directions has not been able to place any material before this Court of any merit in its case of direct theft against the petitioner.
9. The question whether the inspection report of the respondent is correct or not, is a question of fact. If this Court was to in this writ petition hold that no case for direct theft is made out and the bill for direct theft was to be quashed for the said reason, the same would foreclose the right of the respondent of proving before the Special Court by cogent evidence the case if any of direct theft against the petitioner or of genuineness of the inspection report. This Court in writ jurisdiction cannot allow any such finality when disputed questions of fact requiring adjudication by examination and crossexamination of witnesses arises.
12. The counsel for the respondent also states that the respondent has already placed before this Court documents to establish a case of direct theft.
13. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the directions:
(i) that as against the demand of the respondent against the petitioner of Rs.3,51,396/ for direct theft charges, the petitioner till the disposal of the complaint case, shall be liable to pay only the sum of Rs.1,10,000/ already deposited with the respondent. If the petitioner is ultimately held liable for any further amount, the petitioner shall remain liable to pay the same together Hem Chand Gupta vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.Suit No.598159/16 Page 22 of 33
with the applicable interest.
(ii) conversely, if the complaint of the respondent is dismissed, consequently the direct theft bill shall also fail and the petitioner shall then be entitled to refund/adjustment of Rs.1,10,000/ paid by her against the said bill together with interest at rate of interest in terms of Section 154(6) of the Act from the date when the said amount was deposited by the petitioner with the respondent under orders of this Court and till the date of refund/adjustment.
(iii) it shall be open to the petitioner, if summoned in the direct theft complaint to oppose the said claim on all grounds available under the law.
(iv) the petitioner if so desirous, shall also have liberty to approach the Special Court impugning the action of the respondent. No order as to costs."
32. Ld counsel for the plaintiff has also placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as P. R. Metrani vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore, JT 2006 (10) SC 537. The relevant portion is as under:
"15. A presumption is an inference of fact drawn from other known or proved facts. It is a rule of law under which courts are authorized to draw a particular inference from a particular fact. It is of three types, (i) "may presume", (ii) "shall presume" and
(iii)"conclusive proof". "May presume" leaves it to the discretion of the court to make the presumption according to the circumstances of the case. "Shall presume" leaves no option with the court not to make the presumption. The court is bound to take the fact as proved until evidence is given to disprove it.
In this sense such presumption is also rebuttable. "Conclusive proof" gives an artificial probative effect by the law to certain facts. No evidence is allowed to be produced with a view to combating that effect. In this sense, this is irrebuttable presumption."
Hem Chand Gupta vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Suit No.598159/16 Page 23 of 3333. Ld counsel for the plaintiff has also placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as M/s Time Properties & Promoters vs. Delhi Development Authority, C.R. 245/1984. The relevant portion is as under:
"6. The ratio of these decisions is that if there is legal necessity for a declaration before grant of relief of injunction it would not be a suit for injunction and if grant of declaration is not necessary the suit would be purely a suit for injunction.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent refers to M/s Ratlam Straw Board Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and another, AIR 1975 Delhi 270 (4) wherein the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that contract came to end by acts of defendants and injunction be issued restraining the defendants from recovering the specified amount. It was held that ad valorem court fee was payable. In Punjab Exchange vs. Rajdhani Grains Ltd. 1975 Raj. Law Reporter 485 (5) it has been observed that if, in a suit for mandatory injunction relief claimed by the plaintiff amounts to his asking for possession from a defendant in exclusive possession the court fee payable is as required by Section 7 (v) of the Court Fee Act. In Asit Baran Chaudhary and another vs. Profulla Chandra Bose, AIR 1984 Calcutta 366 (6) the plaintiff was seeking to avoid forfeiture of a sum of Rs.91,900 which on terms of the contract the defendant No.1 had forfeited. Under those circumstances it was held that the plaintiff was liable to pay ad valorem court fee. In the instant case it is not the case of the defendant that sum of Rs.6,50,000 has already been forfeited by it. These precedents referred to by the learned counsel for the defendant are not relevant for the determination of court fee payable in the present case.
10. The trial court acted illegally in the exercise of its jurisdiction by demanding ad valorem court fee. The impugned order is liable to be set aside. The revision petition is accepted setting aside the impugned order dated 21st February, 1984. It is held that the suit has been properly valued for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction and proper court fee has been paid. No order as to costs. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 22nd July, 1985."
Hem Chand Gupta vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Suit No.598159/16 Page 24 of 3334. It has been contended by the Ld. counsel for the defendant that on 10.01.2000, inspection of connection bearing no. K. No.1222870 installed at property bearing no. RZA32, Vijay Enclave, New Delhi (said 'Property') was conducted by the Enforcement Team alongwith M.T.D (Meter Testing Department) staff, Zonal Staff and CISF Officials. At the time of inspection plaintiff was present during the entire process of the inspection and found indulged in direct theft of electricity by bypassing meter No. E99728684 R000942 MF with the help of PVC wire.
35. For ready reference, the relevant extract of the inspection report has been reproduced herein: (already marked as Exhibit DW1/1) "User Sh. Hem Chand Gupta, address RZ32A, Vijay Enclave, New Delhi. C/load Drill m/c 1x1/2 HP, Welding Set 1x5 HP, Jet Pump 1x1 HP, Fan 3x60w, lamp 3x60w. The total connected load found 5.479 KW IP. This defaulter was using electricity by bypassing meter no. E99728684 R000942 MF. The meter & PVC wire removed from site. The necessary photographs were taken at site. The reel of photographs H/O (handover) to Sh. N. Chowdhary inspector zone for developing & printing. The meter, service line/PVC wires through which the above defaulters were stealing electricity removed from site by zonal staff. AE zone is requested to raise bills on account of direct theft as per connected load & category also as per tariff provisions as per rules. AE Zone is requested to deposit removed material from site deposit in police station while lodging FIR. AE Zone is further requested to lodge FIR U/S 39 of I.L.A read with 379 of I.P.C as per rules. The copy of raised bill sent to XEN Enf. West. The original copy of this inspection report H/O to Sh. N. Chowdhary Inspector Zone No. 1503 for AE Zone for taking further necessary action as per rules at his ends."
Hem Chand Gupta vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Suit No.598159/16 Page 25 of 3336. As per applicable rules the premises of the plaintiff was booked under DT (Direct Theft) and the impugned bill of Rs.1,12,287.98/ was duly raised on 11.01.2000.
37. It is further argued by the Ld. counsel for the defendant that the plaintiff had never lodged a complaint before Police Station or higher authority of the defendant department in respect of his allegation of bribery against government officers (CISF officers, DVB Officials, including enforcement team, MTD staff and Zonal staff).
38. It has been argued that defendant had discharged all functions in accordance with all applicable provisions and rules and in a fair and transparent manner.
39. Sh. Hem Chand Gupta was examined as PW1. Ld. counsel for the defendant has attracted the attention of the court towards the following statements. In para no.6, of the affidavit by way of evidence, the plaintiff/deponent affirms that he has a generator in the property in question to meet the requirement of power and to meet the requirement in an emergency. Further, in para no.8 of the affidavit in evidence of the plaintiff, it has been deposed that on refusal of gratification to the raiding party, they took the photographs of the wire, which was lying on the terrace of the said property and was connected with the Generator for the Hem Chand Gupta vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Suit No.598159/16 Page 26 of 33supply of electricity in different parts of the said property.
40. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff has not filed, any proof of installation of generator set in the premises in question. The said averments in relation to demanding of gratification and on refusal of the same a theft case was initiated is an after thought story of the plaintiff. Not a single iota of evidence supporting plaintiff's story has been placed before this Court. Even CISF was present at the time of inspection which is not denied by the plaintiff.
41. Ms. Kavita Sharma was examined as DW1, on behalf of the defendant, Ms. Kavita Sharma, presently working as a DGM (T) Contract, in the Delhi Transo Ltd, and the then government officer working with the DVB as AE(Enf.)W, filed the evidence by way of affidavit as 'DW1'. The DW1 was part of the inspection team that visited the premises of the plaintiff on 10.01.2000, and therefore conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case.
42. The DW1 deposed that the theft amount was deposited, without any protest on 15.01.2000. Further, the DW1 reiterated the contents pertaining to inspection that was conducted in the said premises and found the plaintiff indulged in direct theft, as stated in the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant, as true and correct.
Hem Chand Gupta vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Suit No.598159/16 Page 27 of 3343. The Ld. counsel for the defendant was referred to the following contradictions in the testimony of the plaintiff (a) In cross examination of the plaintiff dated 28.01.2015, it has been submitted by the plaintiff that the receipt of generator and the photograph of the same were filed before the Court. Whereas, in deferred cross examination dated 21.04.2015, the plaintiff has admitted that there is no proof of generator in the court file.
b) In para no.8 of the affidavit by way of evidence of the plaintiff it has been alleged by the plaintiff that on refusal of gratification to the raiding party they, took the photographs of the wire, which was lying on the terrace of the said property whereas it has been submitted by the plaintiff in his cross examination that it is wrong to suggest that raiding team has taken photographs of PVC wires in his presence.
c) In cross examination of the plaintiff dated 23.08.2005, it has been admitted by the plaintiff that entire inspection was carried out in his presence, whereas in cross examination dated 21.04.2015, it has been submitted by the plaintiff that during the raid he had left the raiding team alone for once or twice further he has submitted that he had left the raiding team alone for about 10 minutes or so.
44. It has been contended that the inspection was conducted when power distribution was under the government and that government officials inspected and then raised the impugned bill and the Court must consider the well recognised principle that prima facie public servants Hem Chand Gupta vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Suit No.598159/16 Page 28 of 33must be presumed to act honestly and conscientiously and their evidence has to be assessed on its intrinsic worth and cannot be discarded merely on the ground that being public servants they are interested in the success of their case.
45. Reliance has been placed upon State of Kerala vs. Mathew (M.M) and Anr., 1978 AIR 1571, 1979 SCR (1) 264, the Hon'ble Lordship of the Supreme Court have observed as follows:
"It is true that courts of law have to judge the evidence before them by applying the well recognised test of basic human probabilities and that some of the observations made by the sessions Judges especially one to the effect that the evidence of officers constituting the inspecting party is highly interested because they want that the accused are convicted cannot be accepted as it runs counter to the well recognised principle that prima facie public servants must be presumed to act honestly and conscientiously and their evidence has to be assessed on its intrinsic worth and cannot be discarded merely on the ground that being public servants they are interested in the success of their case"
46. DW1 Ms. Kavita Sharma was cross examined at length by the plaintiff. The witness admitted that she does not remember the exact reading of the meter at the time of removal. The witness also stated that the signatures of the defaulter is to be taken on the load inspection report. The witness also stated in case party refused to sign then such endorsement is to be made on the report. A copy of the report also given to the party. There are no signatures on the load inspection report of the plaintiff. There is no mention of the fact that the plaintiff has refused to Hem Chand Gupta vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Suit No.598159/16 Page 29 of 33sign.
47. The defendant has failed to produce on record any document which can show that the plaintiff was present at the site of inspection. On the contrary, the inspection note does not bear the signatures of the plaintiff. The defendant has also failed to prove that even the basic procedure was followed and the plaintiff was given a fair chance of hearing. In light of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the plaintiff has been able to prove that the bill is prima facie illegal.
Issue no.1 stands decided accordingly against the defendant. Issue no.2 was whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendants from creating any false bill or penalty. Such kind of protection is available to each and every one and there is no requirement of granting an injunction in each and every case.
Issue no.2 therefore stands decided against the plaintiff.
Issue no.3 was whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of mandatory injunction thereby directing the defendant to restore the electricity connection and withdraw the false electricity bill dated 11.01.2000.
The plaintiff has been able to discharge the burden of proof cast upon him. In view of the foregoing discussion, this issue stands decided in favour of the plaintiff.
Hem Chand Gupta vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Suit No.598159/16 Page 30 of 33Issue no. 2B 2B. Whether suit of plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD
48. The onus to prove this issue was on the defendant. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for perpetual and mandatory injunction. In the month of January 2010, plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the plaint. In para no. 8 of plaint, the amendment has been done that the plaintiff has deposited the theft bill 'under protest' (though, no evidence has been filed to show how was it made 'under protest'). The prayer clause 1 was also amended and for the first time the plaintiff claimed the refund of the amount already deposited, that is, Rs.1,12,287.98/ After the above stated amendments subsequently, following issue were framed by this Court:
"2A. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the refund of deposited amount of Rs.1,12,287/? OPP 2B Whether suit of plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD"
49. It has been argued by the Ld. counsel for the defendant that the plaintiff has voluntarily, without any force or pressure deposited the theft amount on 15.01.2000. The plaintiff in the year 2013, for the first time, asked for the refund of the said amount by preferring an amendment in the plaint in the above stated suit for perpetual and mandatory injunction. It is argued that the plaintiff cannot ask for refund of money Hem Chand Gupta vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Suit No.598159/16 Page 31 of 33at this belated stage. As per the provision of Limitation Act, the refund can be sought within three years from the date of cause of action and in this matter, as per the plaintiff the alleged cause of action arose on 10.01.2000. It has been argued by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff has voluntarily and without any pressure or force deposited the theft amount on 15.01.2000, such that no criminal/civil liability shall be incurred on the plaintiff.
50. Section 3 of the Limitation Act provides interalia that if the suit is instituted after the prescribed period of limitation, the suit shall be dismissed. Section 2(j) of the Limitation Act defines prescribed period as the period computed in accordance with the provisions of the Limitation Act. To put it differently, successive violation of the right will not give rise to fresh cause and the suit will be liable to be dismissed if it is beyond the period of limitation counted from the day when the right to sue first accrued.
It is the contention of the plaintiff that the amount was deposited under protest on 15.01.2000. The present case was filed on 13.01.2000. Therefore, it is held that the suit was filed within the prescribed limitation period. The necessary corollary of even the earlier suit would be that the plaintiff shall be entitled to refund of amount if the bill was found to be illegal. This issue is therefore decided against the defendant. The fact that the plaintiff had deposited the theft amount cannot be taken against him.
Hem Chand Gupta vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Suit No.598159/16 Page 32 of 33Issue No. 2A Whether plaintiff is entitled to the refund of deposited amount of Rs.1,12,287/? OPP The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff. In view of my findings on issue no. 1, 2 and 3 it is held that the plaintiff has discharged the burden of proof cast upon him successfully. It appears reasonable that the amount deposited by the plaintiff shall be refunded. The plaintiff is held entitled to refund of amount of Rs.1,12,287/ alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from 15.01.2000 till the date of decree. Relief
51. In view of the foregoing discussion the suit filed the plaintiff is decreed. The defendant is permanently restrained from realising the dues of the impugned bill. The defendant is directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,12,287/ alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from 15.01.2000 within 8 weeks from today. Any delay beyond this period will attract a higher rate of interest @ 18% per annum. The defendant is directed to give plaintiff an opportunity to be heard and then take a decision on the matter in accordance with law before proceeding further to raise any bill.
No order as to cost Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after due completion.
Announced in the open (Himanshu Raman Singh)
court today on 05.11.2016 Civil Judge1, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Hem Chand Gupta vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Suit No.598159/16 Page 33 of 33