AN ELECTRIC COMPANY IS ENTITLED TO CHARGE A CONSUMER ON THE BASIS OF ONE UNIT POWER FACTOR IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY AGREEMENT TO THE CONTRARY.

Madan Mohan Prasad, J.

1. This is an appeal against an order refusing the grant of injunction.

2. The appellant is a Rolling Mill, and it entered into an agreement with the respondent-Company for supply of electric energy for the purpose of running the mill. The Electric Company charged the plaintiff for the aforesaid supply of energy on the basis of the tariff for high tension supply. The bills were drawn up on the basis of supply at 325 Kilo-volt Amperes (KVA). It appears that differences arose between the two Companies in respect of the charges payable in the year 1971, Prior to that, since the agreement in the year 1968, the appellant had paid to the respondent at the rate claimed by the latter. As a result of the non-settlement of the difference aforesaid, a suit was filed by the appellant for a declaration that the Companys demand and realization on the basis of 325 KVA was illegal, that the Companys demand and realisation without considering restricted hours in calculating the supply was illegal and that the companys demand and charges on the basis of power factor at one unit while calculating the minimum units chargeable at 25% of load factor of contract demand were wrong and illegal. The plaintiff further sought for a decree for a sum of Rs. 13,645/- and odd being the amount illegally so realised. During the course of the suit, an application was filed for grant of injunction which has been refused. Hence this application.

3. It appears from the order of the learned Subordinate Judge that only two (points) were raised before him by this appellant and they were in respect of supply on the basis of 325 KVA and the other in respect of the power factor. In respect of the first point, the case of the appellant is that the Electric Company should not have charged it on that basis but on the basis of 260 KVA. The defendants case is that in view of the plaintiff having undertaken by the agreement aforesaid to pay at the rate calculated on the basis of 325 KVA, it had no case on the point. With regard to the second point, the case of the plaintiff is that the Company should have charged on the basis of 0.80 power factor and not on the basis of one unit power factor. The case of the defendant on the other hand, is that the current rate at which the Company has been charging all customers is on the basis of one unit power factor; and, there being nothing in the agreement to exclude the plaintiff, it was and is entitled to charge at that rate. The learned Subordinate Judge found that the plaintiff had not made out any substantial case on the first point. With regard to the second, the learned Subordinate Judge found that there was nothing in the agreement about this matter, and, therefore, the question would have to be decided in the suit itself. Apart from his findings on the two points aforesaid, he found that the balance of convenience was in favour of the respondent and that there was no question of any irreparable injury to the appellant. In this view of the matter, he rejected the prayer.

4. Mr. J.C. Sinha, appearing for the appellant, has confined his argument merely to the ground relating to power factor. For the purpose of the present appeal, he did not make any effort to show that the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge relating to 325 KVA is wrong. Therefore, his only argument has been that the learned Subordinate Judge evaded the consideration of the question relating to power factor. He has urged that the learned Subordinate Judge ought to have considered as to whether in the absence of anything in the agreement, there was anything on which the defendant could rely to show that it was entitled to charge at one unit power factor. The prayer has, therefore, been made that the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge ought to be set aside and the matter sent back for fresh consideration. So far as the ground relating to power factor is considered I am afraid in the circumstances of the present case I d