Delhi District Court
Shri Ranbir Singh vs Tpddl on 9 October, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA: ASJ ( ELECTRICITY)
NW DISTRICT:ROHINI: DELHI
Civil Suit no. 203/12
Unique ID no. 02404C0206812012
Shri Ranbir Singh
Son of late Shri Rampat
R/o VPO Auchandi
Delhi110039. .............Plaintiff.
Vs
TPDDL
Through its Chief Executive Officer,
office of EAC, EAC Building Sector3,
Rohini, Delhi110085. ...........Defendant.
SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION
Date of institution : 07/08/2012
Date of reserving order : 07/10/2015
Date of pronouncement : 09/10/2015
Appearances
Sh. B.S.Solanki ............Ld counsel for the plaintiff.
Sh. V.K. Rai ............Ld counsel for the defendant.
J U D G M E N T
1) Brief facts of the present suit for declaration and mandatory injunction are that plaintiff is the registered consumer of electricity connection CS no. 203/12 (Sh. Ranbir Singh Vs TPDDL) Page no...... 1 of 13 bearing K. no. 41100121895 installed at his house at Village & Post Office Auchandi, Delhi for domestic purpose.
2) The plaintiff's case is that he has been making payment of electricity charges regularly. The officials of the NDPL had changed the meter and wires of his premises, but they did not remove the old meter and wires from the site. He has made a written application to this effect to the NDPL office on 06/08/2010. On 14/07/2010 officials of the defendant company had visited his premises and had booked a false case against him and an illegal bill dated 20/7/2010 has been raised for a sum of Rs. 45053/ on the basis of a false inspection which is liable to be quashed.
3) Written statement was filed by the defendant company wherein they have refuted the case of the plaintiff and have stated that plaintiff is not entitled to any relief since he has willingly and knowingly indulged in theft of electricity by way of dishonest abstraction of energy and has caused wrongful loss to the defendant company. They have also stated that during the inspection, meter no. 430766 having reading 4138.9 KWH was found installed at site and another meter no. 41044165 having reading 1263KWH of K. no. 41104084897 was found installed. During the inspection meter CT box seals, meter box seal, terminal seal , meter Half RHS seal were found missing and meter half LHS seal were found tampered with. The meter was segregated and it was found that the internal pressure coil line was missing and the pressure coil was connected by a stranded aluminum wire. It is thus stated CS no. 203/12 (Sh. Ranbir Singh Vs TPDDL) Page no...... 2 of 13 that the bill raised by the defendant company is correct and as per law and same be ordered to be paid by the plaintiff and suit of the plaintiff be dismissed.
4) On 15/07/2013, after completion of the pleading of the parties
following issues were settled:
i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for
declaration, as prayed for? OPP
ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of
permanent injunction,as prayed for ? OPP
iii. Relief, if any .
5) Plaintiff in support of his case has examined himself as PW1. He has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/1 and has filed documents Ex. PW1/A to Ex. PW1/C. He has stated in his evidence that he is the registered consumer in respect of electricity connection bearing no. 41100121895 which has been installed at his premises. He further stated that he is a permanent resident of the aforesaid premises and has been using electricity meter for domestic purpose. He further stated that he has been paying the bills issued by the defendant company regularly. The officials of the NDPL had changed the meter and wires of his premises but did not remove the old meter and wires from the site. He had made a written application to this effect to the NDPL office on 06/08/2010. On 14/07/2010 officials of the defendant company had visited his premises and had booked CS no. 203/12 (Sh. Ranbir Singh Vs TPDDL) Page no...... 3 of 13 a false case against him. He states that a bill dated 20/7/2010 has been raised and illegal demand of Rs. 45053/ on the basis of false inspection report has been made.
6) On 10/02/2015 Plaintiff's evidence was closed vide statement of Sh. B.S.Solanki Ld counsel for the plaintiff.
7) The defendant company has examined two witnesses i.e DW1 Sh. Sh. R.D.Prasad, DW2 Sh. Sandeep Khurana and DW3 Sh. Devi Sahay in support of their case.
8) DW1 Shri R.D.Prasad is Senior Manager with the defendant company who has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/A and stated therein that a joint inspection was carried out by the staff of the defendant company at the premises of plaintiff on 14/07/2010 and an inspection report Ex. DW1/1 was prepared. during the inspection meter no. 430766 having the reading 4138.9 KWH was found installed at site and another meter no. 41044165 having reading 1263 KWH of K. no. 41104084897 found installed. During the inspection meter CT b ox seals, meter box seal, terminal seal , meter Half RHS seal were found missing and meter half LHS seal was found tampered. The meter was segregated and it was found that the internal pressure coil line was missing and the pressure coil was connected by a stranded aluminum wire. He has proved the show cause notice Ex. DW1/3 for attending personal hearing and copy of letter dated CS no. 203/12 (Sh. Ranbir Singh Vs TPDDL) Page no...... 4 of 13 23/07/2014 Ex. DW1/4. He further stated that the bill of Rs. 45053/ Ex DW1/5 has been raised as per DERC regulation for the period 15/07/09 to 14/07/10. He further stated that plaintiff had settled the bill with the defendant company for an amount of Rs. 27030 on 27/07/2012 vide settlement Ex. DW1/6 and copy of DTC pass of plaintiff as Ex. DW1/7.
On being crossexamined by the Ld counsel for the plaintiff Sh.B.S.Salonki he stated that the inspecting team was constituted as per directions of HOG Enforcement and no letter from HOG has been received by him for intimating the constitution of the enforcement team and there were three members in the said team i.e Sh. Sridhar Sahoo, Sh. Amit Kumar and himself. He further stated that before starting the inspection they have not called any independent witness to witness the inspection. He stated that the owner of the premises was present during the course of inspection and two meters were found at the premises in question. He stated that the meter which was found faulty was in the name of Ranbir Singh and he do not know about the registered consumer of the other meter. He further stated that two meters can be sanctioned in one premises to one person subject to division of the property in two portion. He stated that during the course of inspection there was no partition in the premises in question. He he admitted that in the bill Ex. DW1/5 the meter number is not mentioned because it is an assessment bill. He admitted that electricity was being supplied through both the meters in the subject premises during the course of inspection on 14/07/2010. He denied that plaintiff was using the electricity only through new meter and the copy of CS no. 203/12 (Sh. Ranbir Singh Vs TPDDL) Page no...... 5 of 13 inspection report was given to the plaintiff at the time of inspection. He admitted that the inspection report is not in Hindi Language and the Hindi version of inspection report was not given to the plaintiff but the gist of the case was explained to the plaintiff in Hindi. He further stated that during the course of inspection various people gathered in the street in front of the subject premises and he did not request any person from that gathering to witness the inspection proceedings. He further stated that the photographer was assisting to the team on behalf of permanent contractor to whom the work has been assigned by the defendant company. He denied that the inspection report has been illegally prepared only to implicate the plaintiff in a false theft case and same was prepared in the office of defendant. He denied that the plaintiff was only using the electricity only through new meter and not through old meter. He further stated that he do not know that the connection of old meter was disconnected by inspector Mathur.
9) DW2 Sh. Sandeep Khurana tendered his evidence by way of affidavit EX DW 2/A and proved the assessment bill as EX. DW 2/1. He stated that in the year 2010 he was posted as Senior Officer in EAC of the defendant company and his duty was to raise bill based on the inspection carried out by the enforcement team. He stated that in the present case he had raised bill on account of direct theft on the basis of inspection dated 14.07.2010. He stated that an inspection had been carried out by the joint team of defendant company on 14.07.2014 with respect to meter bearing No. 430766 installed at the premises No. 322, Ground Floor, VPO Auchandi, Delhi in the presence of CS no. 203/12 (Sh. Ranbir Singh Vs TPDDL) Page no...... 6 of 13 representative of the consumer. He stated that during the course of inspection the electricity supply was found disconnected and as such bill of Rs. 45,053/0 had been raised on account of direct theft of electricity. He stated that the bill had been raised as per DERC Regulation and is produced.
10) On being crossexamined by Sh. B.S. Solanki Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff he denied that a wrong bill has been raised against the plaintiff .
11) DW3 Sh. Devi Sahay is the photographer who stated that on 14.07.2010 he along with inspection team of Enforcement Department had visited the premises of plaintiff at Ochandi Village, Delhi. He stated that he had taken the photographs at the spot on the instruction of the raiding party and proved the same as Ex. DW 3/1 to Ex. DW 3/7. He proved the negatives as Ex. DW 3/8.
12) On being crossexamined by Sh. B.S. Solanki Ld. Counsel for the accused he stated that he had gone to the spot on the oral instructions and no letter was written by TPDDL. He stated that he had taken the photographs of one meter. He stated that a number was mentioned on the meter but he did not remember the same. He admitted that he had not signed the inspection report or any other document or photograph. He denied that he had deposed falsely.
13) No other witness was examined by the defendant company, CS no. 203/12 (Sh. Ranbir Singh Vs TPDDL) Page no...... 7 of 13 therefore, defendant's evidence was closed vide order dated 16.09.2015.
14) Final arguments were heard. I have heard Ld counsels for the parties and have gone through the case file and documents placed on record carefully. My findings to the issues are as under. I shall decide issue no.1 first.
15) ISSUE NO.1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a declaration, as prayed for? OPP The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff who had to prove that the bill in question was raised based on illegal inspection and , therefore, the bill be declared null & void. It is, therefore, essential for me to go through the record and the testimonies of the witnesses to ascertain as to whether the inspection in the present case on the basis of which the impugned bill had been raised was not as per law. The main defence of the defendant company is that the bill has been raised as per law since at the time of inspection meter CT box seals, meter box seal, terminal seal , meter Half RHS seals were found missing and meter half LHS seals were found tampered with. It is also the case of the defendant that after the meter was segregated, it was found that the internal pressure coil line was missing and the pressure coil was connected by a stranded aluminum wire. It is thus stated that the seals of the meter had been tampered with and it is thus proved that the plaintiff had committed dishonest abstraction of energy. It is also stated that since the CS no. 203/12 (Sh. Ranbir Singh Vs TPDDL) Page no...... 8 of 13 plaintiff is the user and beneficiary of such dishonest abstraction of energy, no relief can be granted to him.
16) The counsel for the plaintiff on the other hand has admitted that he is the user of the premises in question, however he has been using the electricity through new meter only and the inspected meter was not in use. He states that he has proved that the officials of NDPL had changed the meter and wires of the plaintiff's premises and that they had not removed the old meter and wires from the site of the plaintiff for the reasons best known to them and since then the old meter and wires were lying unused at the site.
17) As perusal of the testimony of DW1 Sh. R.D. Prasad shows that as per him two meters were found installed at the site and meter seals, meter terminal seals and meter half RHS seals of meter No. 430766 were found missing . Meter half LHS seals were also found tampered with. He has further stated that the meter was segregated and internal pressure coil link was found missing. DW2 Sh. Sandeep Khurana has also stated that during the course of inspection electricity supply was found disconnected from meter No. 430766 and the bill in question has been raised on the basis of direct theft of electricity.
18) I am of the opinion that case of the defendant is that meter No. 430766 was retained at the site and had been found to be tampered with since RHS seals were missing and LHS seals were found to be tampered with. The CS no. 203/12 (Sh. Ranbir Singh Vs TPDDL) Page no...... 9 of 13 inspection in this case pertains to the old retained meter No. 430766. A perusal of the file shows that it is the main defence of the defendant company that RHS seals were missing and LHS seals of this meter were found to be tampered with. Therefore, on the basis of the same it has been inferred that the plaintiff had tampered with the old retained meter No. 430766, and had been thus indulging in theft of electricity.
19) However, it is the case of the defendant in the inspection report itself that at the time of inspection the old meter No. 430766 which has been alleged to be tampered with was found idle. No electricity was being consumed through the said meter. It has also emerged in the testimony of the defence witnesses that electricity was being consumed only through the new meter. DW 1 Sh. R.D. Prasad has stated in his crossexamination that the plaintiff was using electricity through both the meters. However, the testimony of this witness is contrary to their own inspection report wherein it is clearly mentioned that the meter in question was lying idle hanging on the wall of the premises. It is clearly mentioned in the inspection report Ex. DW 1/1 that, ' the load was running through supply of K.No. 41104084897'. Therefore, it is clear from the inspection report that the testimony of DW1 is contrary to the documents of the defendants themselves on which they have heavily relied upon i.e. the inspection report. It is, therefore, clear that the plaintiff was consuming electricity through the new meter which had been installed at his premises as per law. It is not the case of defendant that new meter No. 41044165 through which electricity was being consumed had been tampered CS no. 203/12 (Sh. Ranbir Singh Vs TPDDL) Page no...... 10 of 13 with or that electricity was not being consumed through the same. The present case is also not of direct theft of electricity. Therefore, in my opinion, the plaintiff has proved that he was not committing theft of electricity by tampering with the meter No. 430766 which had been inspected by the inspecting team on 14.07.2010.
20) In view of the above discussions, I am therefore of the opinion that plaintiff has been able to prove that he had not committed dishonest abstraction of energy as alleged by the defendant company. In view thereof I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to declaration that the bill raised on the presumption of the dishonest abstraction of energy as discussed above illegal and bound to be declared as null and void. Accordingly issue No.1 is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
21) ISSUE NO.2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for ? OPP The relief of injunction is a discretionary relief. The person who approaches the court for the same needs to establish that a legal right exists in his favour having corresponding obligation upon the opposite party. The plaintiff is however, required to establish that the opposite party is adamant to violating his existing legal right and needs to be prevented from doing so. In this case the plaintiff has established that he has been using the electricity CS no. 203/12 (Sh. Ranbir Singh Vs TPDDL) Page no...... 11 of 13 connection for domestic purpose and has never misused the same for any other purpose. The plaintiff has established that the officials of NDPL had changed the meter and wires of his premises but they did not remove the old meter and wires from the site and further that he is regularly making the payment of the electricity bill from time to time raised by the defendant. The plaintiff has further succeeded in proving that the inspection report dated 14.07.2010 was illegal. It is also established while deciding issue No.1 that plaintiff was not indulging in dishonest abstraction of energy during the inspection dated 14.07.2010, he is, therefore, entitled to the discretionary relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its employee, agents from disconnecting the electricity supply through K.No.41100121895 installed at the premises of the plaintiff i.e. Village & Post Office Auchandi, Delhi for not making the payment of the bill dated 20.07.2010 which has been declared to be illegal and null and void. The issue No.2 is thus decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
.
22) Relief In view my findings on issues No.1 and 2, the plaintiff is entitled to grant of declaration as well as permanent injunction as claimed for. Accordingly the decree of declaration is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant declaring the inspection dated 14.07.2010, final assessment bill dated 20.07.2010 for Rs.45053/ as illegal and null and void. CS no. 203/12 (Sh. Ranbir Singh Vs TPDDL) Page no...... 12 of 13
23) Further a decree of permanent injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant restraining the defendant its employee, agents or any other person representing it are restrained from disconnecting the electricity supply through K. No. 41100121895 installed at the premises of the plaintiff i.e. Village & Post Office Auchandi, Delhi for not making the payment of the bill which is based on the illegal inspection dated 14.07.2010.
24) In view of above terms, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with no order as to costs. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
25) File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
th
ON 9 October, 2015.
(SWARANA KANTA SHARMA)
ASJ (ELECTRICITY) NW
ROHINI :DELHI
CS no. 203/12 (Sh. Ranbir Singh Vs TPDDL) Page no...... 13 of 13