Ndpl vs Redyant Rubber
2016 Latest Caselaw 5355 Del

$~R-20
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                       Date of Decision: 12th August, 2016

+   RFA 158/2005
    NDPL                                                ..... Appellant
                           Through:   Mr.Sheetesh Khanna with Mr.Sushil
                                      Jaswal, Advocates
                           versus

    REDYANT RUBBER                                     ..... Respondent
                Through:              Ms.Sonali Malhotra with Mr.Amit
                                      Sanduja, Advocates
    CORAM:
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                           JUDGMENT

% (ORAL)

Impugned order of 01st December, 2004 declares that the impugned demand bill is illegal and restrains the appellant herein from disconnecting the electricity supply to the respondent-plaintiff.

The factual background of this case already stands noted in the impugned order, and so needs no reproduction.

At the hearing, learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the sanctioned load was 18.65 KW at the premises, in question, but the connected load found by the Joint Inspection Team was 45.59 KW and so, the demand bill was justified and legal.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the stand now taken has not been disclosed in the appeal and in any case, the stand

RFA 158/2005 Page 1 of appellant has been dealt with in para 13 of the impugned order.

Reliance has been placed by respondent's counsel upon the decision in Col. R.K. Nayar (Retd.) Vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 140 (2007) DLT 257 to submit that comparison of commuted consumption and recorded consumption cannot lead to inference of Fraudulent Abstraction Energy (FAE).

Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order, the evidence on record and decision cited, this court finds that it is noted by the Trial Court in paragraph No. 13 of the impugned order that comparison of consumption pattern would not be justified because the electric meter was found to be intact except that the paper seal pasted on it by appellant had given way due to rusting. In the decision given by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in R.K. Nayar (Supra) it has been already declared that for detection of Fraudulent Abstraction Energy (FAE) an accu check meter is required to be used and comparison of the computed consumption with the recorded consumption by itself cannot lead to an inference of FAE.

In the considered opinion of this court, in view of the evidence on record and dictum of the Supreme Court in R.K Nayar (Supra), the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. As such, this appeal is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

                                                       (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                          JUDGE
AUGUST 12, 2016
neelam

RFA 158/2005                                                      Page 2