Delhi District Court
In The Matters Of vs Sathi Plastic Co on 8 December, 2021
IN THE COURT OF MS. MEENU KAUSHIK, SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-RENT CONTROLLER, NORTH-
WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, NEW DELHI
Suit no. 849/20
CNR No: DLNW03-001486-2020
In the matters of :
TATA Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.
RRG TPDDL Office at Cencare
Keshapuram, Delhi-110034
Through AR Sh. Naresh Kumar
......Plaintiff
Versus
Sathi Plastic Co.
Through Prop. Sh. Devender Kumar Sharma
R/o Plot No.744, 1492 Onkar Nagar,
Tri Nagar, City Delhi-110035
......Defendant
Date of institution : 08.10.2020
Date of Judgment : 08.12.2021
SUITS FOR RECOVERY OF RS.1,68,978.74 ALONGWITH
INTEREST
JUDGMENT:
1. In short facts are as under:-
The plaintiff is a Company duly registered under the Companies Act, which provides electricity to its registered consumers with observance of all the rules and regulations made under the Electricity Act. Present suit has been filed through Sh. Naresh Kumar, who is duly authorised to sign and file the suit by virtue of power of attorney dated 23.08.2018.
Suit No. 849/20 TPDDL Vs. Sathi Plastic Co. 1/4
2. Defendant is the registered consumer of the plaintiff company for CA No. 600000660088 installed at the address of the defendant. The defendant is under obligation to pay the bill amount for the electricity charges raised by the plaintiff on the basis of electricity consumed by the defendant against the said connection. It is further stated that the defendant lastly paid sum of Rs.45,000/- on 17.09.2018 with respect to present connection and thereafter no payment has ever been made by the defendant. Therefore, supply of electricity was temporarily disconnected/ stopped in the month of December, 2018 and the meter was removed in the month of June, 2019 from the premises of the defendant and subsequently final bill was raised against the defendant on 12.09.2019 having due date 30.09.2019 to the tune of Rs.1,68,978.74. The defendant was liable to make the payment by the due date, but the defendant has failed and neglected to do so. Hence, the present suit.
3. Defendant in the present case was summoned, however, despite service he failed to appear and accordingly vide order dated 27.11.2021, defendant was proceeded ex-parte.
4. The plaintiff has moved application for substitution of AR of the plaintiff and accordingly vide order dated 30.11.2021, Sh. Madan Mohan has been substituted as new AR of the plaintiff.
5. Thereafter, on behalf of plaintiff, Sh. Madan Mohan has been examined as PW-1 in ex parte evidence, who tendered his Suit No. 849/20 TPDDL Vs. Sathi Plastic Co. 2/4 evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and deposed in line with the case set forth in the plaint and proved the documents i.e. GPA dated 24.09.2021 Ex. PW1/1(OSR), Electricity Bill Ex. PW1/2, Account statement Ex. PW1/3 and certificate u/s 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW1/4. Plaintiff's evidence was closed on 30.11.2021. Thereafter ex-parte final arguments were heard.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and have perused the record carefully.
7. As the testimony of plaintiff has remained unrebutted and unchallenged, I have no reasons to disbelieve the same. The defendant had opted not to contest and was proceeded ex-parte. Electricity bill Ex. PW1/2 issued to the defendant and statement of account of the defendant Ex.PW1/3 reveals that defendant had consumed the electricity and shows the liability of the defendant to pay the bill. As such, plaintiff is entitled for the decree of suit amount as prayed for.
8. In view of above discussion, suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs.1,68,978.74. As regards the rate of interest, pendente lite and future, in the larger interest of justice, rate of interest at the rate of 6% per annum is granted to the plaintiff from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization of decreetal amount.
9. If any payment is ever made by defendant to the plaintiff Suit No. 849/20 TPDDL Vs. Sathi Plastic Co. 3/4 with respect to the transaction in question then the same shall be deducted from the decreetal amount.
10. Costs of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
11. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signedAnnounced in the Open Court MEENU by MEENU
KAUSHIK
On 08.12.2021 KAUSHIK Date: 2021.12.08
16:31:24 +0530
(MEENU KAUSHIK)
SCJ-CUM-RC NORTH-WEST DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
Suit No. 849/20 TPDDL Vs. Sathi Plastic Co. 4/4