Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
K. RAMASWAMY, J.
G.V. Narsa Reddi - Appellant;
Versus
The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, rep. by the Dy. Chief Accountant Electricity Revenne Officer, Nirmal - Respondents.
Appeal No. 524 of 1980
Decided on : 14-7-1987
1 AIR 1984 A.P. 360.
2 AIR 1987 Delhi 219.
The consumer is bound by the Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electrical energy issued under Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, and is liable to pay minimum charges even if no electricity is consumed.
Headnote:
ELECTRICITY ACT - MINIMUM CHARGES - SECTION 79 - LIABILITY OF CONSUMER TO PAY MINIMUM CHARGES - ABSOLUTE LIABILITY - CONSUMER CANNOT ESCAPE LIABILITY FOR PAYMENT OF MINIMUM CHARGES EVEN IF NO ELECTRICITY IS CONSUMED.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a consumer of electricity, entered into an agreement with the respondent Board for the supply of electrical energy. The appellant defaulted in payment of bills, leading to the disconnection of supply. The Board sued the appellant for recovery of minimum charges and surcharge. The appellant contended that he was not liable to pay minimum charges as no electricity was supplied due to the disconnection and that he was entitled to seasonal rates for three months only.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellant was bound by the Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electrical energy issued under Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, which made the payment of minimum charges absolute. The court also held that the appellant could not escape liability for minimum charges merely because the transformer was taken away by the Board due to non-payment of bills.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant was liable to pay minimum charges even though no electricity was supplied due to disconnection. 2. Whether the appellant was entitled to seasonal rates for three months only.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on Condition 33.2 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electrical energy, which stated that minimum charges were payable by the consumer even if no electricity was consumed, for any reason whatsoever. 2. The court held that the appellant could not rely on the judgment in A.P.S.E. Board v. K.K. Sugar Industry, as it did not consider the statutory condition 33.2. 3. The court also held that the appellant could not rely on the judgment in H.D. Shourie v. Delhi Municipal Corporation, as it did not appear that the issue of tariff condition 33.2 was raised before the Delhi High Court.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and held that the appellant was liable to pay the minimum charges for the entire period.
JUDGMENT :
1. The defendant is the appellant. The respondent Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short, “the Board”) laid the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 25,653-43 Ps. towards the minimum charges and surcharge. The trial Court decreed the suit for Rs. 23,862-23 Ps. giving benefit to the appellant, a sum of Rs. 1,791/20 Ps. Against the said decree, the appeal has been filed.
2. The case of the respondent-Board is that the appellant entered into an agreement Ex. A-1 dated September 24, 1974 for supply of electrical energy and electricity was released from December 8, 1974. The appellant consumed the electricity from March 31, 1975. He committed default in payment of the bills; as a result the supply of energy was disconnected from July 27, 1975. The appellant was charged for payment of minimum charges from April 1975 to September 1975 at the old tariff and since there was an increase in the rate of tariff from October 1975, he was charged from that rate to December 1977 at the increased rate and bills were issued, but the appellant did not pay the same; as a result, the suit was laid for the aforesaid amount. The defence of the appellant is that the meter was burnt out on January 27, 1975 and no electrical energy was supplied from January 27, 1975. In September 1975, the transformer itself was shifted by the respondent from the premises of the appellant; as a result the appellant need not pay any electricity charges, much less the minimum charges. It is also contended that the factory is a seasonal one and he is liable to pay seasonal rates for three months and therefore he is not liable to pay minimum tariff for the entire period. On framing appropriate issues, adduction of evidence and consideration thereof, the trial court held that the appellant is bound under the tariff rules, to pay the minimum charges; therefore he is liable to pay the minimum charges. Though he is entitled to concession for seasonal supply for only three months, since the concession was taken away by making amendment in October, 1975, from October 1975, the seasonal benefits given to the ginning factory of the appellant were not available and therefore he is liable to pay the minimum charges for the entire period. Thus, it decreed the suit.
3. Sri Sankar Rao, learned counsel for the appellant raised three-fold contentions. Firstly it is contended that once electricity was not supplied by the respondent by disconnection, the appellant is not liable to pay minimum charges. Jt is now well settled that the Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electrical energy issued in B.P. Ms, No. 690 dated September 17 1975 as, amended from time to time, are statutory conditions issued in exer-cise of the power under Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act (54 of 1948) and both the Board and the consumer are bound by the terms and conditions of the supply of energy. Condition 33.2 provides thus:
“Minimum charges shall be payable by the consumer as specified in the tarriff for different categories of consumers. This obligation shall be absolute. The minimum charges will be payable by consu-mer even if no electricity is consumed, for any reason whatsoever and also if the charges for electricity actually consumed are less than the minimum charges. The minimum charges will be payable even if the electricity is not consumed because supply has been disconnected by the Board because of non-payment of electricity charges, pilferage, other malpractices or for any other valid reason.”.
4. Under this condition, the liability is absolute and therefore the consumer is bound to pay the minimum charges. Sri Sankar Rao, has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in A.P.S.E. Board v. K.K. Sugar Industry1 wherein this Court has held that for unduly long period, the consumer cannot be made liable for payment of minimum charges I have considered the effect of the judgment in catena of decisions. The learned Judges have not considered the statutory condition (
