Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

SALONI SINGH SINGH 2024.07.20 17:42:10 +0530

2) In the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant, the following preliminary objections have been raised: - That on 24.04.2015, an inspection was conducted at the premises in question and it was found that one electricity connection, bearing CA no. 100757396 (hereinafter also referred to as "disconnected connection"), was lying disconnected on account of non-payment of dues of Rs. 45,993/- (Rupees Forty Five Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-Three Only). That the disconnected connection was registered in the name of Smt. Dayawanti and despite issuance of several disconnection notices, the consumer had not paid the dues and eventually Smt. Dayawanti had issued cheques in discharge of her liability, which were dishonoured, and for which notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, "N.I. Act") had been issued. That in the same premises, electricity was now being supplied, vide CA no. 150234056 registered in the name of Sh. Lokesh Verma and CA number 100752365 registered in the name of Smt. Kanta Devi (hereinafter also referred to as the "live connections"). That the registered owners of the said live connections were served notices on 11.05.2015 in which they were asked to stop the supply of electricity through these live connections to the portion of the premises in which the electricity had been disconnected for non-payment of dues. That the registered consumers of the live connections were given an opportunity for personal hearing, but they did not avail the same. They were again served the show cause notice dated 16.10.2015. That after consideration of all facts and on receiving the due approvals for transfer of dues, vide speaking order dated 04.12.2015, the dues of the disconnected connection were Digitally signed SALONI by SALONI SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.07.20 17:42:19 +0530 equally transferred to Sh. Lokesh Verma and Smt. Kanta Devi. That Sh. Lokesh Verma insisted, after the transfer of the dues, that the dues be transferred proportionately to all the other live connections existing at the site and not just to connections providing electricity to the first and second floors. That on the request of Sh. Lokesh Verma, the premises were again visited and on re-inspection, it was found that the disconnected connection was providing electricity to the second floor and that the other six meters, on which transfer of the dues was sought, existed on the ground floor and were being used for commercial purposes only. That the other six meters had been installed prior to disconnection of the disconnected connection in the year April 2011 and only the connection in the name of Rahul Verma had been installed after the disconnection of the disconnected connection for non- payment of dues. That, however, the said connection was only for the ground floor, whereas the disconnected connection provided electricity to the second floor and on inspection, it was informed that the occupant and user of electricity at the first and second floor is the same. That it is apparent from the pleadings of the case, that the occupant of the first floor (plaintiff) and of the second floor (Sh. Lokesh Verma) are brothers and that both the premises are used as one joint property by them and, therefore, the dues were transferred proportionately to both the first and second floors. That the dues of Rs.45,993/-(Rupees Forty-Five Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-Three Only) are legal and are pending against the first and second floor of the premises.

26)The second objection raised by the plaintiff with respect to the bill in question and regarding the transfer of the pending dues to the suit property is that there were seven other electricity meters in the property in question and despite which he had been burdened with the payment of the pending dues. The case of the defendant in their written statement is that on re-inspection, it was found that the disconnected connection was supplying electricity to the second floor and that the occupant and user of electricity at the first floor and the second floor was the same, thus, the dues were transferred proportionately to the first and second floor of the property in question. Further, it is stated that the other six meters on Digitally signed SALONI SINGH by SALONI SINGH Date: 2024.07.20 17:45:16 +0530 which the transfer had been sought, were on the ground floor of the property in question and were being used for commercial purposes and they had been installed prior to disconnection of the disconnected connection in the year 2011. Further, it is the case of the defendant that there was one electricity meter in the name of Rahul Verma, which was installed after the disconnection of the disconnected connection, however, this meter was on the ground floor. It does not seem to be disputed that there were seven other meters in the property in question. DW-2 in his affidavit, Exhibit DW-2/A, has reiterated the said averments that these other meters were installed at the ground floor and were for commercial purposes and that they had been installed prior to disconnection of the disconnected meter. It is pertinent to mention here that the defendant has not transferred the pending dues to those meters in the property in question, which they claim were for commercial purposes, however, no such distinction has been made in Regulation 49 of the Supply Code. The defendant has not brought to the notice of this Court any other Regulation of the Supply Code or any provision of the Electricity Act, as per which the pending dues of a connection for domestic purpose could be recovered or transferred to a subsequent live connection in respect of the same premises only if this subsequent connection was for domestic purposes.

2024.07.20 17:45:39 +0530

30)With respect to the mode of service of notices issued by the defendant, the Regulation 68 of the Supply Code comes into play, which specifically provides that any notice, including notice under Section 56 of the Electricity Act, issued to a consumer by the licensee shall be deemed served, if the notice is delivered either by hand to the consumer at the address notified to the licensee or by way of registered post at the correct postal address of the addressee or if it is affixed at a conspicuous part of the premises and photographed in case there is no person to whom the notice can with reasonable diligence be delivered. The defendant has not placed on record copy of either of the said notices dated 11.05.2015 and 16.10.2015 or produced any evidence to show that the said notices had been served upon the registered consumers of the live connections by any of the said approved modes. The defendant has placed on record the speaking order dated 04.12.2015 as Exhibit DW-2/2 (OSR) pursuant to which the dues of Rs. 22,997/- (Rupees Twenty-Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety-Seven Only) had been transferred to the electricity connection bearing CA no.