A licensee cannot disconnect the power supply of a consumer without serving a separate notice in writing as required by Section 24(1) of the Electricity Act, 1910.

Judgment Jasraj Chopra, J.-This is an appeal by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Sirohi dt. 20-5-1974 whereby the learned lower Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff respondent against the defendant appellant for a sum of Rs. 5 15/-with proportionate costs.

2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that plaintiff Dr. Madan P. Joshi filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 11,000/-as damages on the allegation that the defendant Board wrongfully disconnected his electric supply. The plaintiff has a farm at village Sewadi where he installed electric motor and pumping set. When he applied for the power connection, he gave his residential address of Bali for submission of the bills. However, the bill for the month of June, 1968 was delivered at Sewadi on 18-7-1968 and the due date for payment mentioned therein was 20-7-1968 only. In this bill a sum of Rs. 92.29 was added on account of past arrears. The plaintiff contested that the bill should have been delivered to him at Bali. However, he made no payment and, therefore the respondent disconnected his power connection on 11-8-1968. He came to know about it on 12-8-1968. He protested and demanded reconnection which was restored to him on 3 1-8-1968. It has been contended by the plaintiff that this disconnection was against the provisions of Section 24(1) of the Electricity Act of 1910 and therefore, the disconnection has resulted in a loss of Rs. 17,300/-to him and, therefore he has submitted that his claim be decreed for that amount.

3. The defendant admitted the plaintiffs case so far as it related to the grant of connection and that the address given in the application form was that of Bali, but since a representative of the plaintiff used to receive the bills at Sewadi, they delivered the bill at Sewadi, and further asserted that the addition of Rs. 92.29 was also rightly made in the bill of June, 1968. It has further submitted that the disconnection was totally legal as it was printed on the top of the bill that if the payment of the bill is not made within seven days, the power line is liable to be disconnected. It has also disputed the loss of plants and the calculation of the value thereof made by the plaintiff According to the defendant the claim is excessive and prayed for special costs Under Section 35 CPC On the basis of the pleadings four issues were framed.

4. Both the parties led evidence. After hearing the parties the learned lower Court held that disconnection made by the defendant appellant was illegal and wrong but it also held that for this disconnection the obstinacy on the part of the plaintiff respondent has also a part to play. According to the learned lower Court the compensation claimed was quite excessive and, therefore, it came to the conclusion that Rs. 500/-should be allowed as nominal damages and the plaintiff was further entitled to recover back Rs. 15/-paid by him as re-connection charges. In this view of the matter the suit of the plaintiff was decreed against the respondent as aforesaid. Aggrieved against this judgment, the Board has come in appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Sudhesh Gupta for the appellant and Shri P. R. Choudhary for the respondent. The crucial question to be looked into in this case is whether a disconnection could have been ordered by the Board without issuing a notice as required by 5, 24(1) of the Electricity Act. It is the admitted case of the parties that no separate notice as envisaged by Section 24(1) of the Electricity Act was served on the plaintiff . It was contended by Mr. Gupta that such a notice is contained in the bill itself It is printed therein and it is not the requirement of Section 24(1) that a separate notice should have been served. As per Mr. Gupta the learned lower Court erred in holding that provisions of Section 24(1) of the Electricity Act and Rule 25(c) & (i) of the General Conditions of Supply fram

Click Here to Read the rest of this document