Goyal Food Industries vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
2002 Latest Caselaw 57 Del

JUDGMENT

Sharda Aggarwal, J.

1. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit for perpetual injunction against the defendants for restraining them from disconnecting electricity supply to their premises A-10, Lawrence Road, Industrial Area, Delhi and to further restrain them from raising bills against the plaintiffs claiming LIP (Large Industrial Power), subletting and Shunt Capacitor charges, against connection Nos. 1257865 (Power), 125787 (Light) and 129393 (Power) and 129394 (Light).

2. Briefly, the plaintiff's case is that they being the owners of the premises A-10, Lawrence Road Industrial Area, Delhi consumed electricity through two power connections and two light connections. There is no dispute regarding the light connections. Power connection No. 1257865 stands in the name of the erstwhile owner Sh. Om Prakash Gupta from whom the plaintiff had purchased the property and the second power connection No. 129393 is in the name of the plaintiff. The sanctioned load with respect to the connection in the name of Sh. Om Prakash Gupta (the erstwhile owner) is 91.50 KW and the sanctioned load with respect to the connection in the name of the plaintiff is 48.75 KW. The plaintiff's case is that it is a SIP (Small Industrial Power) consumer and its sanctioned load against each connection was less than 100 KW as on 21.4.92 (the date of inspection). The premises of the plaintiff was inspected by the officials of DESU (now DVB) with respect to the two power connections. One of the charges was that the plaintiff was using the excess load as against the sanctioned load and it was alleged that the user of the load was more than 100 KW and as such the plaintiff was to be charged surcharge for excess load on LIP basis, i.e., having load more than 100 KWs. The second charge was that the plaintiff was inter mixing and hence subletting the connections. The third charge was that the plaintiff's power factor was below 0.85 and the plaintiff was liable to pay LPF/shunt capacitor charges. The plaintiff filed objections dated 10.6.92 and 17.6.92 to the inspection report but the defendants, without deciding the objections raised demand billing the plaintiff at LIP rates for the past three years and for a further period of twelve months from the date of the inspection. The defendants also claimed subletting charges. The plaintiff alleged that as per the Tariff Rules of the defendants SIP consumer is entitled to consume 200 units per KWs per month without paying any load violation surcharge. It is alleged that unless a consumer consumed units in excess of 20,000 units per month he could not be said to be using load in excess of 100 KW because 100 KW x 200 units is equal to 20,000 units. The plaintiff also filed its consumption pattern for both connections for a period of three years before the date of inspection which shows that the plaintiff had never been LIP consumer. The plaintiff's case is that the defendants claim to bill on LIP rates for the past three years and for a further period of twelve months from the date of inspection is illegal. The plaintiff has alleged that after the inspection report the consumer can show cause/give evidence that he was not using the electricity as alleged for which he was entitled to show cause notice. The further contention of the plaintiff is that the Meter Testing Department's report of the same date and found the meters in OK position. As the defendants threatened to disconnect the electricity connections and raise bills as per LIP charges the plaintiff filed the present suit. Vide orders dated 28.7.92 of this Court the defendants were restrained from disconnecting the power and light connections installed at the plaintiff's premises. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendants. They filed their written statement and the plaintiff's filed to put in appearance and thereafter the defendants failed to put in appearance and were ultimately proceeded ex-parte on 20.4.95. The plaintiff led ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit and exhibiting the documents.

3. The plaintiff has filed affidavit of Brahmanand their partner by way of evidence and has proved the averments of the plaint. The certified copy of the certificate of the registration of the plaintiff firm has been proved as Exh. PW1/1. The evidence shows that the plaintiff has been engaged in making Besan and Dal in the premises in question and is a consumer of electricity vide two power connections and two light connections, one power and light connection being in the name of erstwhile owner of Sh. OM Prakash Gupta and the other being in his name. The Deponent proves letters issued by defendants as Exhs. PW1/2 and PW1/3 giving the sanctioned load of the connections As on the date f the inspection there were no dues pending against the plaintiff. The past paid bills have been proved as Exhs. PW1/4 to PW1/7. The Deponent proves the inspection report and has stated how charges levelled against the plaintiff are wrong and illegal. It is stated that according to relevant Tariff Rules of the defendants the plaintiff was to be served with a show cause notice and was entitled to show evidence that he was not using the amount of electricity as alleged in the inspection report. It is deposed that according to Tariff Rules SIP consumer was entitled to consume 100 KW per month without paying any load violation charges and the plaintiff was SIP consumer and was no consuming units in excess of 20,000 units per month as against either of the two power connections. Electricity bills showing the consumption pattern were proved as Exh. PW1/9/(i) to Exh. PW1/9(74). It has been deposed that the claim of the defendants therefore to bill the plaintiff at LIP rates for the past three years and further period of twelve months from the date of the inspection is grossly illegal. The Meter Testing Department's report is proved as Exh. PW1/11 which shows that as on the date of inspection the Metres were in OK position. The consumption pattern chart is also proved on record to show that the plaintiffs were not LIP consumer. The objections raised to the inspection report have been proved as Exhs. PW1/14 and PW1/15. It has also been deposed that the connection in the name of the erstwhile owner Sh. Om Prakash Gupta could not be sublet to the plaintiff as the plaintiff did not stand to gain by inter mixing two connections. It has been explained in evidence that by using a load connection of 91.50KW + 41.75 KW the consumption pattern against the connection of erstwhile owner Sh. Om Prakash Gupta would have been around 28,050 units. On the other hand, the consumption as against the power connection in the name of the erstwhile owner was never in excess of 20,000 units. The plaintiff also proved circular dated 23.1.89 issued by the defendants which shows that the consumption pattern is relevant to determine the connected load. The defendants have held the plaintiffs guilty without conducting the necessary inquiry. It is also stated that vide an interim order the defendants were restrained from disconnecting electricity supply to the four connections installed in the suit premises. It is also stated that vide orders dated 12.10.92 the initial interim order dated 28.7.92 was modified clarifying that the plaintiff will be bound to pay/make payment of regular bills which may be issued by the Respondent minus subletting and shunt capacitor charges and also payment on SIP basis.

4. The evidence led by the plaintiff by way of affidavit and the documents proved on record clearly establish the case of the plaintiff. The Tariff Rules shows that the inspection report was not final and the plaintiff could shaw evidence that he was not using the electricity as alleged in the report. For that the plaintiff did file objections which were not decided by the defendants and instead raised the demand on LIP basis. The consumption pattern along with the copies of bill proved by the plaintiffs shows that they wee never LIP consumer. The MTD report indicated the meters to be in OK position on the date of inspecton itself. This report indicated specific machines as against specific meters which establishes that there was no inter mixing of the two power connection. Inter mixing was otherwise not to the advantage of the plaintiff as both the connections were existing and energized. Both the meters were being used by the plaintiff and as such there could not be any subletting to its own self. Certainly, it is not the case of the defendants that the entire energy consumed was not being recorded in the meters. On the contrary MTD did not find the meters defective. They were found in OK position. The objections to the inspection report/demand letters filed by the plaintiff show that it was accompanied by a fresh test load report. The inspection report itself gave the power factor as 0.85. Low power factor charges were also not leviable.

5. The evidence lead by the Plaintiff remains unrebutted. For reasons best known to the Defendants, they have failed to contest the suit and get them proceeded ex-parte. The plaintiff successfully proves the averments of the plaint. The suit deserves to be decreed. The suit is accordingly decreed and the defendants are restrained from raising bills against the plaintiff claiming LIP, subletting and shunt capacitor charges on the basis of their letter dated 25.2.92 based on the inspection report dated 21.4.92 and the defendants are further restrained from disconnecting electricity supply to the connection Nos.1257865 (Power), 125787 (Light) and 129393 (Power) and 129394 (Light), installed at A-10, Lawrence Road Industrial Area, Delhi.

6. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs.