SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Del) 4458

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Harpreet Singh Bhatia – Appellant
Versus
North Delhi Power Limited – Respondent
RFA No. 1028 of 2017
Decided On : 08-12-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Palak.

The duty of new owners/occupants to inquire about outstanding electricity dues and the preservation of public property through the payment of electricity charges as provided by the statutory provisions of the General Conditions of Supply under the Electricity (Supply) Act and the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission Act.

Headnote:

electricity connection - dispute over transfer of dues from old to new connection - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 - Electricity (Supply) Act - Section 49 - Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission Act - Sections 11, 28 - [SUMMARY OF ACTS AND SECTIONS REFERENCED: The court discussed the transfer of dues from an old electricity connection to a new one in the same premises, citing the Division Bench judgment in the case of Madhu Garg vs. North Delhi Power Limited and relevant provisions of the General Conditions of Supply under the Electricity (Supply) Act and the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission Act. The court emphasized the statutory nature of the General Conditions of Supply and their applicability to consumers, highlighting the duty of new owners/occupants to inquire about outstanding dues and the preservation of public property through the payment of electricity charges. The court distinguished an earlier Supreme Court judgment and upheld the trial court's decision based on the legal framework provided by the relevant acts and sections.]

Fact of the Case:

The appellant/plaintiff sought relief against the respondent/defendant for disconnecting the electricity supply by transferring the dues of an old electricity connection to the account of a new connection in the same premises. The respondent/defendant claimed entitlement to recover the amount due against the old connection from the new connection, citing Clause 2.1 (iv) of the General Conditions of Supply.

Finding of the Court:

The trial court dismissed the suit, holding in favor of the respondent/defendant based on the legal framework provided by the Division Bench judgment in the case of Madhu Garg vs. North Delhi Power Limited and the relevant provisions of the General Conditions of Supply under the Electricity (Supply) Act and the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission Act.

Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent/defendant could transfer the dues of an old electricity connection to the dues of the new electricity connection in the same premises.

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the trial court's decision based on the legal framework provided by the Division Bench judgment in the case of Madhu Garg vs. North Delhi Power Limited and the relevant provisions of the General Conditions of Supply under the Electricity (Supply) Act and the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, emphasizing the duty of new owners/occupants to inquire about outstanding dues and the preservation of public property through the payment of electricity charges.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

RFA No. 1028/2017 and C.M. Appeal No. 44569/2017 (for restoration of electricity connection in the premises of the appellant)

1. This first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is filed by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the judgment of the trial court dated 25.10.2017 whereby the trial court has dismissed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction. Appellant/plaintiff by the suit plaint sought the relief against the respondent/defendant against disconnecting the electricity supply by not transferring to the account of the new electricity connection the amount of Rs. 4,66,840/- against an old electricity connection in the same premises and which connection was disconnected on account of non-payment of dues. In sum and substance, by the plaint the appellant/plaintiff claims that dues of the old electricity connection which was disconnected for non-payment should not be added to the dues for the new connection in the very same premises, and which contention of the appellant/plaintiff has been rejected by the trial court by referring to the ratio of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Madhu Garg and Another vs. North Delhi Power Limited, (2006) 129 DLT 213 (DB).

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff filed the subject suit pleading that with respect to the electricity connection existing in the premises and having K. No. 33100126373 all charges were regularly being paid by the appellant/plaintiff and it is on 10.11.2008 that the respondent/defendant sent a notice stating that there are outstanding dues with respect to an old electricity connection bearing K. No. 33100120526 in the same very premises and dues of such old connection, which was disconnected on account of nonpayment of dues have to be paid by the appellant/plaintiff inasmuch as such dues of the old connection are liable to be added to the dues payable under the new connection. The dues with respect to the old electricity connection which was disconnected for was an amount of Rs. 3,73,206/-. Appellant/plaintiff sent a reply dated 16.11.2008 to the notice of the respondent/defendant dated 10.11.2008 that he was a tenant in the premises and had no knowledge of the old connection and consequently the respondent/defendant was requested not to transfer the dues of the old connection to the account of the new connection of the appellant/plaintiff. The officers of the respondent/defendant thereafter visited the premises on the 5.10.2010 and sought to disconnect the electricity supply. Appellant/plaintiff sent a letter dated 6.10.2010 and followed it up by the legal notice dated 27.10.2010 to the respondent/defendant to withdraw their impugned notice and eliciting no favorable response, the subject suit was filed.

3. Respondent/defendant contested the suit and pleaded that it was entitled to recover the amount due against the old connection from the new connection of the appellant/plaintiff in the same premises. The action of the respondent/defendant is as per Clause 2.1 (iv) of the General Conditions of Supply.

4. After pleadings were complete the trial court framed issues and parties thereafter led evidence. These aspects are noted in paras 7 to 10 of the impugned judgment and which paras read as under:-

“Plaintiffs' Evidence

7. In order to prove his case, plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1 who filed his evidence in examination-in-chief by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A wherein he reiterated the contents of the plaint on oath. PW-1 has relied upon the following documents:-

1.

Letter dated 10.11.2008 as Ex. PW-1/1

2.

Reply dated 16.11.2008 as Ex. PW-1/2

3.

Copy of letter dated 03.08.2010 as Ex. PW-1/3

4.

Notice dated 12.02.2010 as Ex. PW-1/4

5.

Letter dated 06.10.2010 as Ex. PW-1/5

6.

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top