Delhi District Court
Ashok Arora vs . Tpddl on 25 January, 2016
Ashok Arora Vs. TPDDL
IN THE COURT OF SH. KISHOR KUMAR : CIVIL JUDGE12
(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SUIT NO : 767/14
In the matter of :
Unique ID Number : 02401C0005502013
Ashok Arora,
909, Kedar Building,
Clock Tower, Delhi - 110 007. ...PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
C.M.G.
Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.
C2 Block, Opp. Rani Jhansi Kunj,
Keshavpuram, Delhi - 110 035. ...DEFENDANT
Date of institution : 05.01.2013
Date of judgment : 25.01.2016
SUIT FOR DECLARATION
J U D G M E N T
1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration to declare the bill dated 20.04.2001 amounting to Rs.1,00,852/ as null and void and also to restrain the defendant from disconnecting the connection No.K.31701188703 and K.No. CS No.767/14 Pg 1 of 20 Ashok Arora Vs. TPDDL 31704188704 installed at 909, Kedar Building, Clock Tower, Delhi - 07.
2. Briefly stating the case of the plaintiff is that he purchased first floor in the building 909, Kedar Building, Clock Tower, Delhi - 110 007, in the year 1993 with meter serial K.No.SN0003057127 S614 installed in the name of Sh. Bal Krishan Om Prakash with a load of 1 KW as DL supply. Plaintiff moved an application with the defendant for new connection with 11 KW to be used as NL/commercial supply vide receipt No.318191 dated 02.02.1996. A meter K.No. 21297795614 was installed and energized on 28.10.1996. The old meter K.No.3057127 was removed and disconnected. Bill for the said meter K.No.3057127 used to come on regular basis. The last bill deposited was on 16.05.1998. But the defendants did not send the bill for new connection despite asking by the plaintiff.
3. It is further contended by the plaintiff that first bill on CS No.767/14 Pg 2 of 20 Ashok Arora Vs. TPDDL 12.04.1999 for a sum of Rs.1,00,852.49/ was raised as NL supply. The defendant stated that the meter has been tampered. The DVB assured that a new meter against the bill raised will be installed after the payment is made by the plaintiff and that fresh bill be raised. Since, 21.06.1999 to 17.02.2012, after pursuing with PLA and with Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum of the defendant, nothing resulted. The PLA only directed that the bill be raised as NL supply from 04.07.2003 vide their order dated 01.09.2003, however, the status of the connection was not changed. Plaintiff remained unsatisfied with the decision of the CGRF. That a bill dated 20.12.2012 was received from the defendant for the period July, 2003 to August, 2004 for Rs.68,913/. The last reading on the meter was 75710 when the supply from the meter was disconnected, however, later on the plaintiff has been charged for the units 85030. With all these allegations, plaintiff has filed the present suit.
CS No.767/14 Pg 3 of 20
Ashok Arora Vs. TPDDL
4. In their written statement, defendant company has stated that suit is time barred. Plaintiff has already got the relief from CGRF. There is no proper verification to the plaint. The suit is barred under the principal of resjudicata. The dispute in question has already been decided vide PLA order dated 01.09.2003. The Hon'ble CGRF passed the final order dated 24.05.2012. Suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction. Rest of the case of the plaintiff has been denied being wrong and incorrect.
5. Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendant denying its contents and reaffirmed and reiterated the contents of the plaint.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed for trial on 17.11.2014:
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the decree of declaration, as prayed for?
OPP.
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the CS No.767/14 Pg 4 of 20 Ashok Arora Vs. TPDDL decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP.
7. However, from the record it is revealed that following issues were also framed for trial on 18.05.2015 for convenient sake they are numbered as
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the decree of injunctions, as prayed for?
OPP.
4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred? OPD.
5. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD.
6. Relief.
8. Plaintiff to prove his case examined himself as PW1 by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A.
1. Ex.PW1/1 (OSR) demand letter dated 28.12.2011 (date is overwritten).
2. Ex.PW1/12 (OSR) bill dated 30.08.2005.
CS No.767/14 Pg 5 of 20
Ashok Arora Vs. TPDDL
3. MarkA first bill raised as NL supply on 12.04.1999 vide K. No.SKN 401212977.
4. MarkB protested with the VDB on 23.04.2001.
5. MarkC copy of bill dated 16.05.1998.
6. MarkD copy of bill dated 20.04.2001.
7. MarkE copy of correspondence dated 23.04.2001.
8. MarkF copy of PLA order dated 12.11.2001.
9. MarkG copy of PLA order dated 10.12.2001.
10.MarkH copy of PLA order dated 01.05.2003.
11.MarkI copy of PLA order dated 01.09.2003.
9. On the other hand, defendant examined DW1 Sh. Vikram Talwar, who relied on following documents:
1. Ex.DW1/1 photocopy of affidavit.
2. Ex.DW1/2 photocopy of FAE bill.
3. Ex.DW1/3 photocopy of test report.
4. Ex.DW1/4 photocopy of Electricity Court order.
CS No.767/14 Pg 6 of 20
Ashok Arora Vs. TPDDL
10.I have heard plaintiff in person, ld. counsel for defendant and have carefully gone through the record. The final written arguments filed by the plaintiff are also gone through. ISSUE NO.5 Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD.
11.Onus of proving this issue was on defendant. Vide the present suit through the relief of declaration, plaintiff is seeking nullity of the bill markD dated 20.04.2001 in the sum of Rs.1,00,852.49/. He has been cross examined by ld. counsel for defendant in detail wherein he has deposed that he has filed the present suit in respect of K.No35021977. It was in the name of one Sh. Shyam Lal. While applying for new connection, plaintiff applied in his name. It was installed on 22.10.1996 in the name of Shyam Lal. Plaintiff had purchased the suit property in the year 1993 from Sh. Bal Krishan. There was one connection in the name of Sh. Bal Krishan. Plaintiff has been using the electricity connection in CS No.767/14 Pg 7 of 20 Ashok Arora Vs. TPDDL the name of Shyam Lal since its installation. Said connection was disconnected by the defendant in December or early January, 2004 for non payment of dues. It were around 3.5 Lac. Against this plaintiff had already deposited Rs.2.5 Lac.
12.It is seen that the disputed bill Ex.DW1/2 is in the sum of Rs. 1,00,852/. The plaintiff has not valued the suit at all. The pleadings are not as per the law of pleadings and procedure. Plaintiff is doing the case in person and he himself as drafted the suit also. However, same is in fact not exactly clear what relief plaintiff wants to seek from the court. Still from the entire circumstances, plaintiff is challenging the bill Ex.DW1/2. It is further seen that only court fees of Rs.100/ has been affixed on the plaint, whereas in view of the judgment Sarjeevan Singh Vs. DVB, a consumer seeking declaration of an electricity bill has to pay the court fees on the bill amount. Therefore, it is found that suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued for the relief of declaration.
CS No.767/14 Pg 8 of 20
Ashok Arora Vs. TPDDL
This issue is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.4 Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred? OPD.
13.Plaintiff has filed the present suit on 05.01.2013. Bill dated 12.04.1999 has been challenged by the plaintiff. Plaintiff has not disputed that he had not received this bill at the relevant time. In his cross examination he had admitted having received the bill Ex.DW1/2. The suit is, therefore, found to be palpably barred by limitation.
14.It is contended by the plaintiff that he challenged this bill before the Permanent Lok Adalat who vide its order dated 10.12.2001 ordered that since the petitioner is facing the difficulty and is not in a position to deposit the balance amount (around Rs.1,50,000/ in lump sum). Keeping in view the submission made by ld. counsel for petitioner, petitioner is directed to deposit the balance amount in four CS No.767/14 Pg 9 of 20 Ashok Arora Vs. TPDDL equal monthly installments. It was further made clear to the plaintiff that in case he fails to deposit the amount of any of the installment within the due dates, he shall be liable to pay LPSC as per rules and regulations. Further, before another Permanent Lok Adalat, plaintiff was directed to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/ on or before 05.05.2003. Further, the Permanent Lok Adalat directed the plaintiff to deposit the current charges as per the tariff effective from 04.07.2003.
15.Thereafter, plaintiff has filed a complaint before Consumer Grievances Cell, NDPL. The said authority vide order dated 24.04.2012, decided that:
1. The dues outstanding as on dt. 30.06.02 was Rs. 2,79,944/ and LPSC levied thereon. The dues as on 30.06.02 had already been waived off by Govt. of NCT of Delhi which be cleared alongwtih LPSC from the account of Sh. Sham Lal Katariya.
2. The misuse charges levied as the complainant was found using domestic supply for commercial purpose and as per order of PLA dt. 01.09.03 the connection bearing K.No.35100212977 to be billed as per commercial tariff from dt. 07.07.03 onward and all bills CS No.767/14 Pg 10 of 20 Ashok Arora Vs. TPDDL issued after dt. 04.07.03 be revised as per NL tariff applicable during that period.
3. The bill for the actual energy consumed in connection bearing K.No.35100212977 from 01.07.02 to 03.08.04 as there is no reading after 03.08.04 be prepared. No LPSC is leviable.
4. The revised correct bill in respect of connection bearing K.No.35100212977 be prepared which is payable by the complainant through connection bearing K.No. 31704188703.
5. The already transfered amount along with LPSC be withdrawn.
16.Instead of complying with the directions of CGRF, plaintiff wrote letter dated 17.12.2012 to the Chairman CGRF raising various issues. In a way, after going through this reminder dated 17.12.2012, it is seen that plaintiff was not satisfied with the decision of CGRF.
17.As per Limitation Act, relief of declaration can be sought within three years from the date of accrual of the cause of action or within three years from the date of knowledge. In CS No.767/14 Pg 11 of 20 Ashok Arora Vs. TPDDL the present case, plaintiff was very much aware of the impugned bill Ex.DW1/2 being of the year 1999 since beginning. Hence, it cannot be said that plaintiff was bonafidely litigating before the CGRF. It was only in the year 2012 that plaintiff had gone to the CGRF i.e. after lapse of 12 years. Hence, under these circumstances, suit of the plaintiff is barred by the limitation for all reliefs. This issue is decided in favour of defendant.
ISSUES NO.1, 2 & 3 Whether plaintiff is entitled to the decree of declaration, as prayed for? OPP.
Whether plaintiff is entitled to the decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP.
Whether plaintiff is entitled to the decree of injunctions, as prayed for? OPP.
18.All these issues are taken up together. Onus of proving these issues was on the plaintiff. Vide the present suit through the CS No.767/14 Pg 12 of 20 Ashok Arora Vs. TPDDL relief of declaration, plaintiff is seeking nullity of bill Ex.DW1/2 dated 20.04.2001 in the sum of Rs.1,00,852/. He has been cross examined by ld. counsel for defendant in detail wherein he has deposed that he has filed the present suit in respect of K.No35100212977. It was in the name of one Sh. Shyam Lal. While applying for new connection, plaintiff applied in his name. It was installed on 22.10.1996 in the name of Shyam Lal. Plaintiff had purchased the suit property in the year 1993 from Sh. Bal Krishan. There was one connection in the name of Bal Krishan. Plaintiff has been using the electricity connection in the name of Shyam Lal since its installation. Said connection was disconnected by the defendant in December or early January, 2004 for non payment of dues. It were around 3.5 Lac. Against this plaintiff had already deposited Rs.2.5 Lac.
19.Plaintiff in his further cross examination dated 26.10.2015 deposed that it is correct that connection bearing CS No.767/14 Pg 13 of 20 Ashok Arora Vs. TPDDL K.No.SN0003057127S614 (new K.No.35100305712) was installed on 02.06.1967 for DL purpose in the name of Sh. Bal Krishan Om Prakash and it was removed on 01.07.2002. So far as, plaintiff remembered, new connection K.No. 35100212977 was installed on 22.10.1996 for NL purpose in the name of the plaintiff at the given address. He denied that this connection was installed in the name of Shyam Lal Kataria through him. PW1 identified his signatures at point A signed on 22.10.1996 at page No.2 on document Ex.PW1/D1. According to PW1, he had applied for new connection on 02.02.1996. Copy of the same is Ex.PW1/D2. In the said document Ex.PW1/D2, name of the applicant Shyam Lal through Ashok Arora (plaintiff ) is mentioned. The connection was removed on 02.04.2005 for nonpayment of dues which was raised on 24.01.2001 for Rs.6,53,641/ as DL/DN. It was the first bill raised as DL/DN.
20.Plaintiff/PW1 further deposed that prior to this a case of FAE CS No.767/14 Pg 14 of 20 Ashok Arora Vs. TPDDL (fraudulent abstraction of energy) was booked against the said connection and FAE bill of Rs.100582.49/ was raised on 09.04.1999. Plaintiff admitted that he approached the PLA for redressal of the grievance for amendment in the bill Ex.PW1/6. However, he denied that PLA revised the bill. He volunteered that the PLA order was to allow that he was to be charged as NL supply from 04.03.2003. Admittedly, plaintiff did not challenge the PLA order. PW1 had not made the payment of revised bill as directed by PLA. PLA order dated 01.09.2003 is Ex.PW1/10. Plaintiff has admitted that it is his liability to pay the bill in question during the period from the date of installation to raising the bill. PW1 could not say if he had signed on the undertaking Ex.PW1/D3. He further admitted that he received reply of his representation Ex.PW1/D4. It is also correct that said connection was used from the date of installation to disconnection. Plaintiff had not given any representation to the defendant that he has CS No.767/14 Pg 15 of 20 Ashok Arora Vs. TPDDL not been using the electricity as mentioned. He denied that he should have gone into the appeal before Ombudsman against the order of CGRF. Presently there are two connections; one in the name of wife of PW1 Smt. Alka Arora and another in the name of his son Sh. Sumit Arora, installed in the year 2006. PW1 deposed that there was another connection K.No.31705063110 but the same has been disconnected after the said premises were sold.
21.In his further cross examination dated 26.10.2015, PW1 deposed that connection bearing K.No.31704188703 in the name of Sh. Sumit Arora is used on the disconnected portion K.No.35100212977 which was in the name of Sh. Shyam Lal Kataria. He further admitted that defendant had issued notice dated 28.12.2011 Ex.PW1/1 for transferring the dues of Rs.2,08,243/. The said bill was challenged before CGRF and CGRF passed final order dated 24.05.2012 Ex.PW1/D6. As per this order Ex.PW1/D6 the bill has been revised. PW1 CS No.767/14 Pg 16 of 20 Ashok Arora Vs. TPDDL admitted that the said revised bill has not been paid by him. This is the revised bill which has been challenged before the court. The order of CGRF has not been challenged before the appropriate authority. PW1 volunteered that he has been told orally by the officials of CGRF that he should challenge their order before the Court. Plaintiff has not filed any document on record that the reading was 75710 on the day when the supply was disconnected.
22.DW1 Sh. Vikram Talwar has been cross examined by plaintiff in person. He deposed that it is correct that K.No.SN0003057127S614 was installed at the premises 909, Kedar Building, Clock Tower, Delhi, in the name of Bal Krishan with 5.8KW load as DL supply on 02.06.1967. The said connection was removed on 01.07.2002 and a new connection K.No.2129779S614 was energized on 22.10.1996. DW1 could not say if it was under DCL policy. DW1 also could not say as to when first time the bill for DL was issued CS No.767/14 Pg 17 of 20 Ashok Arora Vs. TPDDL to the plaintiff. He denied that bill Ex.DW1/2 is false and incorrect.
23.After going through the testimony of PW1 and that of DW1, this court comes to the conclusion that in view of observations on issues No.4 and 5, plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. Not only this, it is the case of defendant company that the bill in question challenged by the plaintiff is with regard to the actual consumption. According to Section 42 (5), a consumer can challenge the consumption bill only before State Commission. The plaintiff already availed remedy before State Commission. He being aggrieved of the decision of the State Commission, should have filed appeal/representation before the authority known as Ombudsman u/s 42 (6) of the Electricity Act.
24.I have gone through this provision of law 42(5) & (6) Electricity Act and find substance in the submission of ld. counsel for the defendant. Plaintiff instead of filing the CS No.767/14 Pg 18 of 20 Ashok Arora Vs. TPDDL present suit before the court, should have filed appeal/ representation against the order of CGRF before the authority known as Ombudsman u/s 42(6) of the Electricity Act.
25.Besides this, this court finds that the issue raised by the plaintiff in the present case, already stands adjudicated upon by CGRF in its order dated 24.05.2012. This court cannot sit over the decision of State Commission as an Appellate Court. Hence, plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as prayed for by him in the present case under the issues in hand. These issues are decided against the plaintiff accordingly. RELIEF
26.In view of my discussion on the issues hereinabove, suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
27.Still, as per submissions of the plaintiff, he doing his case in person, this court finds that his case can be considered by the defendant authorities sympathetically under any CS No.767/14 Pg 19 of 20 Ashok Arora Vs. TPDDL Amnesty Scheme, in circulation as on today or in future and if possible, he may be given relief, in his interest. Defendants may consider the case of the plaintiff in the Amnesty Scheme, irrespective of the present judgment of this Court. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (KISHOR KUMAR) on 25.01.2016 CJ12/CENTRAL/DELHI CS No.767/14 Pg 20 of 20