Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. No. 150 of 1987 on the file of I Additional Subordinate Judge, Kakinada is directed against the dismissal of the suit without costs by the judgment and decree, dated 07-12- 1994.

2. The facts leading to the appeal are that the plaintiff filed the suit against Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board and its officials alleging that the plaintiff registered partnership firm is a trading mill with trading and milling licences maintaining statutory registers. The rice mill, milling paddy, is a consumer of Andhra Praesh State Electricity Board under service connection No. 18129 since 1984. While relea sing the supply of electricity, the Engineers of the Electricity Board supervised the installation work, checked and fixed a three phased meter and seals on the meter and box on 05-05-1984. Qualified employees of the Electricity Board periodically inspected the meter and box and noted the readings regarding the consumption of electrical energy. The plaintiff was paying the electricity consumption charges as per the bills issued by the Assistant Accounts Officer, Electricity Revenue Office, Kakinada and from 05-5-1984 to 18-7-1986, the plaintiff paid a total sum of Rs. 39,181-30 ps. While so, the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, Kakinada issued a notice in proceedings No. ADE/O/KDA/RC/F/DOC/ No. 40/86-87-D- 1718/86, dated 1-8-1986 stating that on 18-7-1986, the Assistant Divisional Engineer, (D.P.E.), Rajahmundry inspected the plaintiff's service connection and noticed that: (1) the meter when tested with 1 K.W. load, the meter disc was rotating forward in second and third phases and rotating in reverse in first phase, (2) after opening the box and T.C. seals, it was observed that the C.T. primary of R phase is connected reverse resulting in reverse rotation in the R phase, (3) the defective connections were rectified by interchanging the secondary connections at the terminal block of R phase and forward rotation of disc was observed in the first phase, and (4) the above factors indicate that the meter is not recording the actual consumption. It was further stated that the plaintiff has to pay within 15 days the estimated value of energy not recorded by the meter at Rs. 77,432-30 ps., failing which the supply would be disconnected. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Rajahmundry and as per the notice it paid Rs. 44,329-50 ps. in three instalments towards 50% of the amount demanded with surcharge. The Superintending Engineer ultimately confirmed the assessment made by the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation and dismissed the appeal in his proceedings TEC H.2 640/87, dated 22- 4-1987. The plaintiff was called upon to pay the balance sum within 30 days and the erroneous orders were passed without any opportunity for the plaintiff to make a representation during the final hearing of the appeal. The meter was not technically tested in MRT laboratory and the Assistant Divisional Engineer, D.P.E. has no jurisdiction to inspect the meter. The methods adopted by him to test the meter were not scientific. The irregular rotation of the meter was not shown to the plaintiff before or after the alleged rectification. The total quantity of paddy bags milled and the number of units consumed for such milling ought to have been considered. The plaintiff was not guilty of any malpractice or pilferage with seals on the meter and the box intact. The alleged reverse rotation in R phase is not admitted and the plaintiff, who was not responsible for any such error, did not derive any benefit. The method of estimating the value of energy is not in accordance with law or rules. The dispute or difference whether the meter is or is not correct shall be decided by the Electrical Inspector under Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, who shall estimate the amount of energy consumed up to a maximum period of six months. The plaintiff paid Rs. 44,329-50 ps. under compulsion and is entitled to its refund. Hence, the suit for declaring the notice dated 01-8-1986 to be illegal and invalid and for consequential reliefs of permanent injunction against disconnection of electric supply and refund of Rs. 44,329-50 ps. and costs.