Back
1997 Supreme(Raj) 1406
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
A.S.Godara, J.
Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur and others - Appellant
Versus
N.K. Enterprises, Udaipur - Respondent
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 342 of 1994.
Decided On : 1-10-1997
The General Conditions of Supply framed by the RSEB, which provide for assessment of consumption based on average in case of a non-functional meter, are applicable when the meter is dead/stopped and not merely incorrect.
Headnote:
ELECTRICITY - SUPPLY - METER - DEAD/STOPPED - BILLING - AVERAGE CONSUMPTION - TEMPORARY INJUNCTION - GRANTED - CIRCUMSTANCES.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, an industrial consumer, filed a suit for injunction against the defendant electricity board (RSEB) for issuing electricity consumption bills based on average consumption when the meter installed at his premises was found to be dead/stopped. The plaintiff had informed the RSEB about the non-functional meter on several occasions but no action was taken to replace it. The RSEB contended that the provisions of Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, which allow for estimation of electricity consumption in case of incorrect meter readings, were not applicable as the meter was dead and not merely incorrect. The plaintiff argued that the General Conditions of Supply framed by the RSEB, which provide for assessment of consumption based on average in case of a non-functional meter, should be followed.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the dispute between the parties was covered by the General Conditions of Supply framed by the RSEB and not by Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The court found that the RSEB had been negligent in not replacing the dead meter despite repeated requests from the plaintiff. The court also held that the plaintiff had a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience was in his favor. Therefore, the court granted a temporary injunction restraining the RSEB from realizing the disputed amount and disconnecting the plaintiff's electricity connection.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, or the General Conditions of Supply framed by the RSEB were applicable to the dispute. 2. Whether the RSEB was negligent in not replacing the dead meter. 3. Whether the plaintiff had a prima facie case and the balance of convenience was in his favor.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the dispute between the parties was covered by the General Conditions of Supply framed by the RSEB and not by Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The court found that the RSEB had been negligent in not replacing the dead meter despite repeated requests from the plaintiff. The court also held that the plaintiff had a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience was in his favor.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition filed by the RSEB and affirmed the impugned order of the lower appellate court granting a temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff, who is non-petitioner, filed a suit for injunction in the trial Court against the defendants, who are presently petitioners, with the averments that he was consuming energy (electricity) supplied by the defendant-R.S.E.B. for operation of his industrial activities since 1978 who was granted 142 H.P. connection and that the defendant-licensee (R.S.E.B.), under the agreement entered into between the parties for supply of electricity for consumption by the plaintiff-consumer, was also under obligation to have supplied, affixed and maintained a correct meter thereby showing consumption of the electricity by the consumer but it was alleged that the plaintiff noticed that the meter fixed in the premises of the plaintiff for recording of the consumption of the energy consumed by the plaintiff, on 7.1.1993, was dead/stopped showing no consumption of electricity and he, accordingly, informed defendant No. 3 about it on 8.1.1993 and 12.1.1993 respectively on telephone and also reminded on 14.1.1993 in writing that meter was stopped and, according, the same may be immediately replaced but the defendants did not take any care. However, after previous recording of the consumption of the energy as recorded by the meter on 31.12.1992, the bill of electricity consumption for Rs. 15,263/- was issued on 13.1.1993 by the defendants and the same was deposited on 23.1.1993. However, in the month of January, 1993 and onwards, the meter being stopped, did not work recording any consumption of the energy and the meter was also not changed /replaced by the defendants inspite of request of the plaintiff and, at last, on 29.5.1993, the defendants sent a letter to the plaintiff that since an electricity meter of Order 5 Class was not available in the stock and, therefore, it was requested that the price of the meter may be deposited with the defendants so as to purchase a new meter for replacement of the defective meter. However, the defendants issued two bills of electricity consumption dated 4.2.1993 and 4.3.1993 for the alleged consumption of electricity for the months of January and February, 1993 respectively and the plaintiff deposited a total sum of Rs. 68,597/- under protest with the defendants.
