Jagat Singh vs North Delhi Power Limited
2010 Latest Caselaw 1311 Del

                                                   UNREPORTABLE

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                          RFA No.499/2002

                               Date of Decision: March 09, 2010


       JAGAT SINGH                               ..... Appellant
                          Through Mr. Sunil Malhotra, Advocate with
                          Ms. Sonali Malhotra, Advocate


                     versus


       NORTH DELHI POWER LIMITED         ..... Respondent
                    Through Mr. Reetesh Singh, Advocate

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA

1.     Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
       judgment? No
2.     To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in the 'Digest'? No

REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

The Delhi Vidyut Board (now known as North Delhi Power

Limited - hereinafter referred to as the NDPL) had raised a bill

against the father of the appellant to the tune of Rs.4,94,689.62P,

allegedly, on the ground that he had committed theft of electricity in

respect of his registered consumer connection No.7406088 installed

in the premises of the appellant at Village Rithala with a sanctioned

load of 45 HP. Before the recovery could be effected, the father of the

appellant died. Hence, the appellant filed a suit in the Court of an

Additional District Judge for declaration that the impugned bill dated

February 24, 1999 was illegal, null and void and unenforceable and

also prayed for permanent injunction against the NDPL restraining it

from disconnecting the aforementioned electric connection.

The learned Additional District Judge who dealt with the suit

vide her judgment dated May 27, 2002 though has held that the NDPL

failed to prove theft of electricity by the registered consumer of

connection No.7406088, yet dismissed the suit holding that the

appellant who is the son of the registered consumer had no

locus-standi to file the suit, as the electricity connection was not in his

name.

Aggrieved by the aforementioned order of the learned

Additional District Judge, the present appeal has been preferred.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the

appellant has stepped into the shoes of his father and, therefore, the

finding of the trial Court that he had no locus to file the suit is

erroneous.

It is not disputed by the NDPL that the appellant is the son of

the registered consumer who has since died. It is also not disputed

that the appellant after the death of his father is using the electricity

under the same registered consumer number which was allotted to his

father and is regularly paying the electricity charges after the death

of his father. In this view of the matter, when the NDPL is accepting

the electricity charges from the appellant consequent upon the death

of his father, it will be travesty of justice to hold that the appellant

was not competent to file the suit challenging the demand which was

raised against his father. The view that I have taken finds support

from a judgment of this Court in the case of Virender Kumar Jain

Versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi reported in 145 (2007)

Delhi Law Times 685. In the said case also, a similar question arose

and the Court held that it was not open to the respondent on the one

hand to take electricity charges for the use of electricity and on the

other hand, say that there was no privity of contract between the

consumer and the respondent and hence, he could not pursue the

case.

For the foregoing reasons, I hold that the appellant was

competent to file the suit and accordingly reverse the finding of the

learned Additional District Judge that the suit was not maintainable.

As on all other issues, the findings have been returned in favour of the

appellant, I restrain the NDPL to give effect to the bill Ex.PW1/2.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the

appellant is misusing the electricity connection, in as much as it is

being used for a purpose other than the one for which it was

sanctioned and as such, the counsel prays that the respondent be

granted liberty to raise a bill against the appellant for misuse of the

electricity. This was not an issue before the learned Additional

District Judge, hence it cannot be raised in appeal before me.

However, the respondent shall be at liberty to move in accordance

with law against the appellant for any alleged misuse of electricity.

The appeal is disposed of.

REKHA SHARMA, J.

MARCH 09, 2010 ka