Delhi District Court
Sh.Jai Lal Singh vs Manager (Legal) Ndpl & Anr on 15 September, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. S.K.MALHOTRA, SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE CUM RENT CONTROLLER (NORTH) DELHI.
Suit No. 231/11.
Sh.Jai Lal Singh ..........Plaintiff
Vs.
Manager (Legal) NDPL & Anr. .......Defendants
ORDER
15.09.2011.
01. By way of present order, I shall dispose of an application U/sec. 151 CPC, dated 24.08.2011, as filed on behalf of plaintiff for restoration of electricity to the premises of the plaintiff.
02. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of present application are that plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction interalia on the ground that two electricity connections, one K.No.45504016396 in the name of plaintiff and another K.No.45505237062 in the name of son of the plaintiff Sh.Ravi Kumar are installed on the ground floor, of the said premises. There are two small shops measuring 10'x 12 feet each. In one shop, plaintiff is running the property dealer business and in another shop, one Video Game parlour is being run for children. The plaintiff in the month of January 2010, when the said shop was constructed, requested the officials of the defendant no.2 for installation of a separate commercial electricity meter and the same request was duly registered in the office of NDPL` and thereafter, for about five times, the officials of the NDPL visited the said shop, but only fixed the slips for the installation of the said new meter, but, same has not been installed on one or other pretext. It is case of the plaintiff that in February 2010, the official of the defendant sent a false and exaggerated Suit No. 231/11 page 1 of page 5 bill of Rs.4,30,797/- for which, plaintiff filed a civil suit in the court of Ms.Tyagita Singh, Civil Judge, being suit no.63/2010 titled as Jai Lal Singh Vs. NDPL and there the settlement took place and as per settlement, plaintiff made the payment of Rs.2,10,000/- to the defendant. Thereafter, defendant sent another bills for Rs.4,640/- and Rs.44,720/-, while charging @Rs.9.84/- per unit of the whole premises inspite the fact that the electricity was being used for domestic purposes. It is case of the plaintiff that thereafter, the defendant sent another bill dated 14.06.2011 payable by 01.07.2011 of the amount of Rs.1,07,620/- which is not liable to pay as he is paying the bill regularly and has already paid the huge amount of electricity charges as per settlement and except two shops, the entire premises is being used for residential purposes, for which he had already applied for commercial connection. The plaintiff has sought decree of declaration to declare the bill of Rs.1,07,620/- illegal and decree of mandatory injunction to direct the defendant to install the commercial electricity connection in the name of the plaintiff for two shops in the premises in question and for the decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant for disconnecting the electricity connection on account of alleged bill of Rs.1,07,620/-.
03. It is stated in the present application u/s 151 CPC that during the pendency of the present suit on 21.08.2011, the officials of NDPL came to the said premises of the applicant and disconnected the electricity supply. Hence, the present application for passing orders for restoration of the essential supply of electricity to the premises of the petitioner bearing Kh.No.89, Min. Gali No.6, Wazirabad Extension, Delhi-110084 through K.No.45504016396, is filed.
04. Defendant contested the present application by filing detailed reply, while taking preliminary objections that the plaintiff is not entitled Suit No. 231/11 page 2 of page 5 for the relief as prayed in the present application, as the relief is beyond part and parcel of the main suit; plaintiff has not come before the court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts on record as the connection in question has been disconnected due to non-payment of dues of Rs.1,24,312/- for the billing month of August 2011; the suit of the plaintiff has become infructuous as the supply has already been disconnected due to non-payment of dues, hence, the present application is not maintainable and liable for dismissal. On merits, the contents of the application have been denied while, while submitting that supply was disconnected due to non payment of dues of Rs.1,24,312/- for the billing month of August, 2011. It is prayed by defendant that application of the plaintiff be dismissed with costs.
05. In the written statement as filed on behalf of defendant, it is submitted that plaintiff had applied for new NL connection as per CC no. 1011035088 dated 02.02.2011 and the same was duly processed, however, there were some dues found pending on the same premises and the plaintiff was duly requested to clear the same. It is further submitted by the defendant that an inspection was carried out by the Enforcement department of NDPL on 06.02.2010 against K.No.45504016396 wherein, total connected load of the connection was found to be 21.211 KW against the sanctioned load of 2 KW for domestic purpose and some other irregularities as mentioned were found and prima facie a case of DAE u/s 135 of Electricity Act 2003 and unauthorised use of electricity u/s 126 of Electricity Act 2003, was booked and accordingly, a final bill for Rs. 4,12,246/- with due date 30.03.2010 was issued, however, consumer approached the Mega Lok Adalat organised at High Court of Delhi on 14.03.2010 and settled the matter and had paid an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- and DAE case was closed as settled and a letter of settlement in this Suit No. 231/11 page 3 of page 5 regard, was issued by the Enforcement department. It is further submitted by the defendant as the consumer was also found indulged in UUE his regular bill is levied accordingly to applicable misuse tariff. It is further submitted by the defendant in para 11 of the written statement that an amount of Rs.78,861/- charged for misuse as per inspection report dated 06.02.2010 and raised bill June 2011 and dues accumulated to Rs. 1,07,420/- (including arrears for regular consumption demand for April, May and June 2011, which are legitimate and payable).
06. I have heard Ld.counsel for parties and perused the record.
07. Ld.counsel for plaintiff/applicant argued that in respect of inspection dated 06.02.2010, a final bill amounting to Rs.4,12,246/- with due date 30.03.2010 was issued and same was settled before the Mega Lok Adalat organised at High Court of Delhi on 14.03.2010 and the applicant/plaintiff made the payment of Rs.2,10,000/- as per settlement and thereafter, sum of Rs.78,861/- as shown arrear for misuse as per inspection report dated 06.10.2010 are not payable by the applicant. Ld. counsel for applicant further submits that admittedly, applicant has applied for commercial connection and is being charged at commercial rate i.e.Rs. 9.84p Per unit for entire premises including residential area, but, the defendant, during the pendency of the present suit disconnected the electricity. On the other hand, ld.counsel for defendant/non applicant argued that the defendant settled the matter for FAE before Mega Lok Adalat and as consumer was found in unauthorised use of electricity, he is liable to pay the misuse charges.
08. The main contention of ld.counsel for defendant/NDPL was that the civil suit which was settled before Lok Adalat and pursuant to which, plaintiff deposited the sum of Rs.2,10,000/- in seven equal installments was against the DAE bill and only the case of DAE was Suit No. 231/11 page 4 of page 5 closed as settled and plaintiff is liable to pay the misuse charges of Rs.78,861/- charged for misuse as per inspection report dated 06.02.2010 and raised in bill of month June 2011. The fact that a final bill amounting to Rs.4,12,246/- pursuant to inspection report dated 06.02.2010 was raised, is not in dispute as also mentioned in para no.7 of the plaint, which was challenged by the plaintiff in a civil suit and ultimately was finally settled before the Lok Adalat at Hon'ble High Court, pursuant to which, plaintiff deposited Rs.2,10,000/- in seven installments. The facts that plaintiff applied for a commercial connection in respect of two shops as per CC no. 1011035088 dated 02.02.2011 and as plaintiff has been using domestic connection for commercial i.e.in respect of two shops, his regular bill is levied according to applicable misuse tariff are also not in dispute. The amount of Rs.78,861/- which has been shown in the bill June 2011 is subject matter of the present suit for which plaintiff has filed the present suit. When the plaintiff has settled the final bill in Lok Adalat in respect of inspection report dated 06.02.2010 and paid the settled amount, the further demand of Rs.78,861/- in respect of same inspection report dated 06.02.2010, for misuse charges, is prima facie not appealable. Accordingly, application U/s. 151 CPC, dated 24.08.2011, as filed on behalf of plaintiff for restoration of electricity to the premises of the plaintiff, stands allowed and defendant is directed to restore the electricity connection K.No.45504016396 installed at ground floor, Gali no.6, Khasra No.91/2, village Wazirabad Extension, Near Dharamshala, Delhi, within three days, on deposit of unpaid consumption charges as well as LPSC thereupon, (except the other charges as shown in bill dated 01.07.2011 to the tune of Rs.78,861/-) by the plaintiff.
Announced in open court ( S.K.MALHOTRA ) on 15.09.2011. SCJ/RC/North)/DELHI Suit No. 231/11 page 5 of page 5