Assam Schedule VII : Form No. 132 HIGH COURT FORM NO.(J) 2. HEADING OF JUDGMENT IN ORIGINAL SUIT / CASE IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE TEZPUR, SONITPUR Present: Smti Munmun B.Sarma Civil Judge Tezpur, Sonitpur 11 th August‟2017 TITLE SUIT NO.10/2013 ITP Limited Registered Office - 17, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kishore Bhawan, Kolkatta 700001, Owner of - Monmohinipur Tea Estate, PO – Darrang Panbari – 784111 Mouza – Dhekiajuli, District – Sonitpur, Assam ......... Plaintiff -Vs - Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd 1. The Managing Director Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. Bijuli Bhawan, Paltan Bazar, Guwahati – 781001, Assam 2. The General Manager Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. Tezpur – 784001, Mouza - Mahabhairab Sonitpur, Assam 3. The Area Manager Industrial Revenue Collection Area
Transcript
Assam Schedule VII : Form No. 132
HIGH COURT FORM NO.(J) 2.
HEADING OF JUDGMENT IN ORIGINAL SUIT / CASE
IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE
TEZPUR, SONITPUR
Present: Smti Munmun B.Sarma
Civil Judge
Tezpur, Sonitpur
11th August‟2017
TITLE SUIT NO.10/2013
ITP Limited
Registered Office -
17, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kishore Bhawan,
Kolkatta 700001,
Owner of -
Monmohinipur Tea Estate,
PO – Darrang Panbari – 784111
Mouza – Dhekiajuli,
District – Sonitpur, Assam ......... Plaintiff
-Vs -
Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd
1. The Managing Director
Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd.
Bijuli Bhawan, Paltan Bazar,
Guwahati – 781001, Assam
2. The General Manager
Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd.
Tezpur – 784001, Mouza - Mahabhairab
Sonitpur, Assam
3. The Area Manager
Industrial Revenue Collection Area
Page 2 of 19
Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd.
Kamarchuburi, Tezpur – 784001,
Mouza – Bhairabpad, Sonitpur, Assam
........ Defendant(s).
This suit for declaration that an amount of Rs.2,65,774/- (Rupees Two Lakhs
Six Five Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Four Only) is not recoverable from
the plaintiff by the defendants vide bill No.351/05 dated 30-03-2013 and for
permanent injunction came-up for final hearing on 14-07-2017
Counsel for Plaintiff : Sri Ananta Goswami
Counsel for Defendant : Sri P.K.Dutta
JUDGMENT
1) This suit for declaration that an amount of Rs.2,65,774/- (Rupees Two
Lakhs Six Five Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Four only) is not
recoverable by the defendants (vide bill No.351/05 dated 30-03-2013) from
the plaintiff and for permanent injunction.
Plaintiff’s Case:
2) The plaintiff is a company known as ITP, incorporated and registered
under the Companies Act, 1956 & carries on business of plantation,
manufacture and sell of tea as a tea planter. The plaintiff has its registered
office at Kolkata & carries on business as the owner of Manmohinipur Tea
Estate. Defendant Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd (hereinafter
referred to as APDCL) supplies power to Manmohini T.E. bearing No.
009000001031, category I. R. T. E.-LQ-161/DHI. Plaintiff has been marking
regular payment of energy bills to the defendant No.3 at Tezpur without any
Page 3 of 19
default. The electricity consumption in respect of labour quarters are recorded
in separate meters and bill is raised from this meter.
3) On 30-03-2013 the defendant No.3 forwarded a bill for Rs.2,65,734/-
(Rupees Two Lakhs Six Five Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Four only) only
vide Bill No.351/05 dated 30-03-2013 to the plaintiff-Monmohinipur Tea
Estate therein “Audit objection bill against short realization of demand
charges” with “NB – Enclosed Audit Report”. The enclosed audit report
revealed about “revised bill” and period pertained to “28-02-10 to 31-10-10”.
The audit report spoke about less billing in the labour quarter metering of the
mentioned period, but silent about how it could happen in as much as the
responsibility of recording meter reading vis-à-vis preparation of monthly
energy bill/s is always a prerogative of the office of the defendant No.3
thorough his subordinate officer/engineer and the auditor being non-technical
person/s has no say in the matter alleged of. The energy supplier company
raised the bill dated 30-03-2013 in old stationery of ASEB.
4) The static meter No.07432177 of LT type metering was supplied and
installed by the energy supplier company & is defendant company‟s
prerogative and consumer does not have any access to it. The plaintiff‟s
garden used to receive energy bills to the extent of its use and used to make
regular payments thereof without any default nor any arrear was shown in
the said monthly energy bills. There is no concept of adhoc bill or audit
objection bill in the Electricity Act and Rules & the instant bill of Rs.2,65,734/-
against labor quarter electricity consumption is a reflection of mismanaged bill
system.
Page 4 of 19
5) It was further prayed in the plaint that the defendant company has no
right to raise the aforesaid revised bill dated 30-03-2013 for the period
February, 2010 to October, 2010 amounting to Rs.2,65,734/- & therefore,
the defendant company is not entitled to any amount whatsoever under the
alleged “revised bill” basing on so called “Audit objection”. Furthermore, the
purported bill not having been raised within the statutory period of 2 years
from the date when such sum became due & not being shown continuously
recoverable in the monthly energy bills as an arrear, has become time barred
and not recoverable from the plaintiff under the specific provisions u/s 56 (2)
of the Electricity Act, 2003. Thus, the present suit was filed with the following
prayers:
a) Declaration that the revised bill No.351/05 dated 30-03-2013 for
the period February, 2010 to October, 2010 for Rs.2,65,734/- is
not lawfully due and recoverable & time barred u/s 56(2)
Electricity Act;
b) Permanent Injunction prohibiting the defendant & their men and
agents from recovering Rs.2,65,734/- or any part thereof from the
plaintiff garden Monmohinipur Tea Estate & from disconnecting the
electricity connection/ power supply from the plaintiff‟s garden
Monmohinipur Tea Estate;
c) All costs of the suit against the defendants;
d) All other relief/s as the court may deem fit and proper.
Defendant’s Case:
6) The defendants contested the suit & filed written statement. They
raised the objections that the plaint was not signed & verified by duly
Page 5 of 19
authorized person & therefore is not maintainable & barred by law. That the
suit is not filed complying with the provisions of Order 29 of CPC and hence,
deserves to be dismissed. The suit is also hit by principles of waiver
acquiescence and estoppel. It was also prayed that the plaintiff is not a
company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and hence, the suit is
not maintainable.
7) It was further claimed that no regular payment was ever received by
the consumer /plaintiff & every month there was a huge amount remained as
balance. Due to non-payment of regular electricity bill the service connection
was disconnected on 16-05-2012 and afterwards part payment was accepted
to reduce balance. It was further stated that the revised bill was served as
per audit report in line of AERC Guide Lines Code 4.2.2.4. The bill dated 30-
03-2013 was legally and validly served on the plaintiff company and the
plaintiff is liable under law to pay the same. AERC guide lines Code 4.2.2.4. is
procedure for assessment of consumption in case of incorrect and stopped
meter. In the event of any meter reading found prima facie incorrect, where
actual errors of reading cannot be ascertained, the assessed quantity of
energy consumed shall be determined by taking the average consumption for
the previous months, succeeding the date of which the defect was detected
or the next three months after correction whichever is higher and bill is
prepared and presented accordingly. The defendant No.3 complied with the
provisions of AERC guidelines & prepared the bill and served to the plaintiff.
There was no mismanagement in the billing system & due to defects detected
in the meter average bill was prepared/served as per rule w.e.f 28-02-2010 to
31-08-2010. Furthermore, the plaintiff misread and misapplied the provision
Page 6 of 19
of s.56(2) Electricity Act & as per law an amount becomes first due when it is
qualified and claimed by raising a bill. As such the revised bill dated 30-03-
2013 become first due on 30-03-2013 and as such the bill is well within time
and not time barred as per provision of Section 56 (2) of EC Act. Hence,
defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.
8) Upon perusal of the pleadings of both parties and hearing learned
advocates of both sides, the following issues are settled:
1. Whether there is any cause of action for the suit?
2. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?
3. Whether the defendant Company has any right to raise the Audit
objection Bill dated 30-03-2013 No.35105 for Rs.2,65,774/- against
the plaintiff?
4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation more particularly u/s 56
(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree, as prayed for?
6. To what other relief (s) the parties are entitled?
9) During trial, the plaintiff examined Sri Parminder Singh as PW-1 and
exhibited 10 documents, as mentioned in the appendix. The defendant-side
also examined Mir Rafiul Amin as DW-1 and 3 documents were exhibited.
DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF :-
10) I have gone through the pleadings minutely and also perused the
documents submitted by both the sides. Also heard the arguments forwarded
by the ld. counsel for the plaintiff and the defendants. Thus, based on the
Page 7 of 19
rival contentions the issues are discussed herein below. Pertinent to mention
that for easier appreciation of evidence and for sake of brevity, the issues
might not be discussed chronologically.
Issue no. 1: Whether there is any cause of action for the suit?
11) This issue was framed because all the defendants challenged that
there is no cause of action for the suit. Even though none of the parties
forwarded any argument in this regard, this issue is discussed so that it
doesn‟t become a point of contention on a future date.
My Decision & Reasons Thereof:
12) For a cause of action to exist it is essential for the plaintiff to mention
such particulars in his plaint as to enable the defendant and the Court to
ascertain whether in fact or law the cause of action did arise as alleged or
not. As can be understood from the perusal of the plaint and a written
statement, the plaintiff is a consumer of the power supplied by defendant
company APDCL. The defendant raised a revised bill, which the plaintiff
challenges in this suit, as they believe that the revised bill is illegal, in valid &
also time-barred. However, the defendants claim that the revised bill has
been rightly raised as per laid procedure and the suit is not time-barred.
Thus, it appears that there is a probable cause of action for the suit. Thus,
issue no. 1 is settled in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue no. 2: Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?
13) This issue was framed because the defendants claimed that the suit is
not maintainable. Defendant challenged the maintainability of the suit on the
Page 8 of 19
point that the plaintiff claim themselves to be a company incorporated,
however, they have not complied with the provisions of Order 29 of CPC.
Argument on Behalf of Plaintiff:
14) The plaintiff had submitted written-argument and had mentioned that
the suit has been instituted by duly authorized, person same being PW1
Parmender Singh, and therefore the provisions of law has been complied
with. It was also submitted that the plaintiff company has submitted all
necessary documents to prove that they are competent to file this suit and
that the suit is maintainable.
Argument on Behalf of Defendants:
15) On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the defendant that
plaintiff company must prove that it is a juristic person & capable of filing the
suit or contesting it, but plaintiff failed to do so. Ext.1 is the 2nd Certificate of
Incorporation of the company & PW1 accepted that the 1st Incorporation
Certificate has not been submitted. If that is the case, how can it be believed
that it is actually an incorporated company? Plaintiff also failed to prove that
it is a registered company & if not registered then it is barred from instituting
this suit. Furthermore, the plaint & the evidence-in-affidavit of PW-1 show
that it has been signed as Manager of Monmohinipur Tea Estate & not as for
the company. PW1 Parmender Singh claimed he obtained Power of Attorney
from Monmohinipur Tea Estate to file the suit but not directly from the
company. Furthermore, the Power of Attorney was given by ITP Ltd. and
mentioned Monmohinipur Tea Estate as factory lessee (Ext.3). No company
resolution was ever taken to file this suit or any authority given to anyone to
Page 9 of 19
file the suit & this fact was admitted by PW1. Thus, when PW1 has not been
authorized to file the suit then how can this suit be maintainable?
16) It was also argued on behalf of the defendant that Ext.2 is the
Memorandum of Association & Article of Association of ITP Ltd., but it is only
a single sheet of page. Thus, this document has no legal value itself. It was
also argued that the plaint is not clear as how the ITP Ltd. came into
existence and even the documents are not sufficient to prove it. Furthermore,
PW1 has no idea as to how ITP Ltd. was formed & explains the relation
between ITP Ltd. & the Tea Estate. Under such circumstances, it is clear that
the plaintiff couldn‟t prove its existence itself, leave alone the question of
proving their other claims. Thus, it is clear that O.29 r.1 CPC has not been
complied with & therefore, the suit not maintainable.
My Decision & Reasons Thereof:
17) As per law, all suits of civil nature are maintainable, unless it has been
specifically barred by statute. Defendant has taken-up two line of defence to
claim that the suit is not maintainable – (1) Plaintiff couldn‟t proof that it is a
incorporated company (2) Non-compliance of O.29 r.1 CPC. I have gone
through the Incorporation certificate ITP Ltd. (Ext.1), Memorandum of
Association and Articles of Association (Ext.2) & Power of Attorney dated 03-
01-2008 (Ext.3).
18) It is true, as pointed out by ld. counsel for the defendant, that Ext.1 is
the 2nd Certificate of Incorporation of the company & the 1st Incorporation
Certificate has not been submitted and there are writing & overwriting on
Page 10 of 19
Ext.1. It is also true that Ext.2 is the 1st sheet of Memorandum of Association
& Article of Association of ITP Ltd. However, the question that arises is
whether this technical matter goes to the root of the case and makes it not
maintainable? My answer would be an emphatic „no‟. O.29 CPC. O.29 r.1 CPC
reads as follows, “In suits by or against a corporation, any pleading may be
signed and verified on behalf of the corporation by the secretary or by any
director or „other principal officer of the corporation who is able to depose to
the facts other case.” Here the word „corporation‟ has not been used in a
restricted sense and is for means legal persons. My view finds support in the
decisoin in Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd., (1971) 1 SCC 286 where a
division bench of Hon‟ble Apex Court held that, “The Code of Civil Procedure
uses the expression “corporation” as meaning a legal person and includes a
company registered under the Indian Companies Act. Order 29 of the Code of
Civil Procedure deals with suits by or against a corporation and there is
nothing in the Code of Civil Procedure that a corporation referred to under
Order 20 means only a statutory corporation and not a company registered
under the Indian Companies Act.”Pertinent to mention that in this said
decision the Hon‟ble Court was dealing with a registered company and
therefore used it as an example and the main operative word here is the
observation that “The Code of Civil Procedure uses the expression
“corporation” as meaning a legal person…”Thus, it is clear that irrespective of
the fact when and how the company was incorporated or not, the plainitff
company can be considered a „corporation‟ u/O.29 r.1 CPC.
Page 11 of 19
19) Coming to question whether PW-1 has a proper Power of Attorney &
whether he has been authorized to institute the suit. The Ext.3 is the Power
of Attorney and it reveals that PW-1 has been given the Power of Attorney &
M/s ITP Ltd. metions itself to be the „lessee‟ of Monmohinipur T.E. I have
considered the objections raised by the defendant side that PW-1 Parmender
Singh has no authority to institute this suit and the Ext.3 is not a valid
document authorising him to institute the suit against the defendants. A
Division Bench of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of United Bank Of India
Vs Naresh Kumar & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 660 dealt with a similar matter where
there was dispute regarding the Power of Attorney issued and a objection
was raised regarding non-compliance of O.29 CPC. Hon‟ble Apex Court held
that, “Reading Order 6 Rule 14 together with Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of
Civil Procedure it would appear that even in the absence of any formal letter
of authority or power of attorney having been executed a person referred to
in Rule 1 of Order 29 can, by virtue of the office which he holds, sign and
verify the pleadings on behalf of the corporation. In addition thereto and
dehors Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as a company is a
juristic entity, it can duly authorise any person to sign the plaint or the written
statement on its behalf and this would be regarded as sufficient compliance
with the provisions of Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A
person may be expressly authorised to sign the pleadings on behalf of the
company, for example by the Board of Directors passing a resolution to that
effect or by a power of attorney being executed in favour of any individual. In
absence thereof and in cases where pleadings have been signed by one of its
officers a corporation can ratify the said action of its officer in signing the
Page 12 of 19
pleadings. Such ratification can be express or implied. The court can, on the
basis of the evidence on record, and after taking all the circumstances of the
case, specially with regard to the conduct of the trial, come to the conclusion
that the corporation had ratified the act of signing of the pleading by its
officer.” Thus, we can safely say that PW-1 was authorized to institue the suit
and pursue the same on behalf of the plaintiff company.
20) Another pertinent point I deem it necessary to state is that I don‟t see
any justifiable ground why an employee (PW-1 Parmender Singh) will institute
a suit and fight a legal battle against a giant like APDCL on his own choice
and without authority from the company & it can be presumed that he has
been authorized to file the plaint & fight the legal battle or his act has been
ratified by the company. My view finds support in the decision of Apex Court
in United Bank Of India Vs Naresh Kumar & Ors., (Supra) wherein the Court
observed that, “The suit had been filed in the name of the appellant
company; full amount of court fee had been paid by the appellant-Bank;
documentary as well as oral evidence had been led on behalf of the appellant
and the trial of the suit continued for years. It is difficult, in these
circumstances, even to presume that the suit had been filed and tried without
the appellant having authorised the institution of the same. The only
reasonable conclusion which we can come to is that the person who instituted
the suit must have been authorised to sign the plaint and, in any case, it must
be held that the appellant had ratified his action in signing the plaint and
thereafter it continued with the suit.”
Page 13 of 19
21) In view of the above discussions I hold that the suit is maintainable &
hence, Issue no. 2 is settled in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue no. 3: Whether the defendant Company has any right to raise
the Audit Objection Bill dated 30-03-2013 No.35105 for
Rs.2,65,774/- against the plaintiff?
AND
Issue no.4: Whether the suit is barred by limitation more
particularly u/s 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003?
22) Both these issues has been taken-up together as they are inter-related
and decision on them are based on same set of law & fact. The plaintiff have
challenged that the defendant company cannot raise an Audit Objection Bill &
that it is liable to be cancelled, mainly when, it is barred u/s 56 (2) of the
Electricity Act as it was not raised within the statutory period of 2 years from
the date when such sum became due & not being shown continuously
recoverable in the monthly energy bills as an arrear.
Arguments By Plaintiff Side:
23) It was argued on behalf of the plaintiff that defendant No.3 admitted
in written-statement that the bill in question was served on the plaintiff
garden on 30-03-2013 & it was in connection with arrear from 28-02-2010.
Thus, it is clearly time-barred. Furthermore, guidelines of AERC Code 4.2.2.4.
speak of procedure for assessment of consumption in case of incorrect and
stopped meter. However, the meter of plaintiff was neither incorrect nor
stopped because defendants official were regularly visiting the garden to
obtain the readings and thereafter bills were raised and accordingly payment
were made at the relevant point of time. Furthermore, it is not at all possible
for the auditors to detect the defect in the meter after 3 years. Evidences
Page 14 of 19
clearly revealed that the audit objection bill dated 30-03-2013 is for the
period February‟2010 to October‟2010 and there was failure on the part of the
defendant APDCL to show this „Audit Objection Bill‟ as an arrear in the current
bills, which ought to have been shown right from the month of March‟2010.
Moreover, there is no provision under the Electricity Act for „Audit Objection
Bill‟ or ad-hoc bill. Hence, it is illegal and unsustainable. It was also argued on
behalf of plaintiff that the defendant-side produced DW-1 Mr. Mir Rafiul Amin
Dewan, Area Manager, IRCA. He neither filed the written-statement, nor knew
anything about how this audit objection was raised by APDCL and he was not
a signatory to the current bills and „Audit Objection Bill‟.
24) It was further argued that it is a clear case within the popular maxim
„vigilantibus et non dormeintibus, jura subvermiunt‟ meaning „law always
assists the vigilant and not those who sleep over their right‟. In support of
their claim plaintiff relied on the decision of Hon‟ble Gauhati High Court in
Manipur Tea Company Vs. Assam State Electricity Board & Ors., (2015) 5 GLR
72. In the said decision the division bench of Hon‟ble Gauhati High Court
discussed s.56 (2) & s.185 (5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 & also the s.6
General Clauses Act, 1897. It was held that s.185 (5) Electricity Act read with
s.6 General Clauses Act saves the liability incurred by the petitioner under the
repealed Act. It was further held that s.56 (2) Electricity Act protects the
consumer from any amount due after a period of two years & it is not
recoverable unless continuously shown in monthly bills as arrears.
Arguments By Defenadant Side:
Page 15 of 19
25) It was argued on behalf of the defendants that the plaintiff was
always irregular in making payment of their dues and huge arrear is already
standing against them & hence, s.56 (2) Electricity Act has been complied
with & it has been shown as arrear. Furthermore, the revised bill has been
prepared as per laid procedure and there is no ambiguity in it and the
defendant company has right to claim the dues rightly payable to them.
My Decision & Reasons Thereof:
26) I firstly start by considering the objection raised by the plaintiff that
there is no provision under the Electricity Act for „Audit Objection Bill‟ or ad-
hoc bill, hence, it is illegal and unsustainable. Perusal of the written-
statement shows that the revised bill was served as per audit report in line of
AERC Guide Lines Code 4.2.2.4. & it lays down the procedure for assessment
of consumption in case of incorrect and stopped meter. In the event of any
meter reading found prima facie incorrect, where actual errors of reading
cannot be ascertained, the assessed quantity of energy consumed shall be
determined by taking the average consumption for the previous months,
succeeding the date of which the defect was detected or the next three
months after correction whichever is higher and bill is prepared and presented
accordingly. Due to defects detected in the meter, average bill was
prepared/served as per rule w.e.f 28-02-2010 to 31-08-2010. Thus, what can
be understood is that the energy company has a laid down procedure for
detection of incorrect and stopped meter & assessment of consumption. It is
seen Electricity Act and its corresponding Rules covers all matters relating to
power consumption, including calculation mechanism, correction of incorrect
meters & defects, etc. The term „Audit Objection Bill‟ per se may not find
expression in the Electricity Act or the Rules, however, what is implies that
Page 16 of 19
during Audit the defect was detected and subsequently this bill was raised.
However, use of a mis-norm doesn‟t invalidate a revised bill generated on a
defect being detected. Hence, this objection of the plaintiff is not sustainable.
27) Coming to the question whether the arrears has been shown
continuously in the bills, I have gone through the evidence of PW-1 and also
perused the documents submitted. The monthly bills for the Oct‟2012 to
Mar‟2013 has been submitted by the plaintiff and exhibited as Ext.5 – 10.
Perusal of these bills shows that each one of these bills shows arrears running
to lakhs of rupees and the plaintiff choose to pay only a meager part of it. For
e.g., monthly bill dated 12-11-2012 shows arrear (principal + surcharge) as
Rs.50,97,987/- & the total monthly bill coming to Rs.53,70,204/-, however,
the defendant choose to pay only Rs.2,27,833/-. Similar fate is seen in all the
other monthly bills submitted by the plaintiff. There is nothing on record to
show that plaintiff made any communication with defendants regarding non-
payment of these huge arrears. The monthly bills submitted by the plaintiff
(Ext.5 – 10) shows that each one of these bills shows arrears running to lakhs
of rupees & the burden was on the plaintiff to prove that the arrears reflected
in the monthly bills (Ext.5 – 10) doesn‟t relate to the dues of Feb‟2010 to
Sep‟2010, however, the plaintiff failed to discharge this burden. I‟ve also gone
through the documents annexed with Ext.4 (audit bill), which shows that it
reflects how the revised calculation was done. Pertinent to mention that the
plaintiff tried to mislead the Court by claiming that the plaintiff has paid all
dues regularly and no arrear pending. Thus, it appears that the plaintiff has
not come to the Court with clean hands.
Page 17 of 19
28) The Hon‟ble Gauhati High Court decision in Manipur Tea Company Vs.
Assam State Electricity Board & Ors. (supra) is a very relevant judgment
when it comes to s.56 (2) Electricity Act, but we have to understand that this
decision was purely on whether „sums due‟. However, the legal position is
different when it comes to revised bills or bills raised on some defect being
detected in the consumption. In the case of M/s Sheo Shakti Cement
Industries, Jharkhand–vs- Jharkhand Urga Vikas Nigam Limited & Ors, AIR
2016 Jharkhand 98 it was observed that, “Sub-section (2) makes it clear that
expression “no sum due” in sub-section (2) is confined to Section 56 only.
Thus, the sum due from the consumer is the amount for charge of electricity
which the consumer has neglected to pay. Section 56(2) refers to only such
amount which was within the knowledge of the Electricity Board/Nigam.
Moreover, it is well settled that a mistake in calculation no doubt can be
rectified at a subsequent stage.”
29) In view of the above discussions it is cleat that there can be no bar on
the defendant company from raising a revised bill on these unchallenged
arrears, as paying these bills is a statutory obligation of the consumer. Thus, I
have no hesitation in holding that defendant Company has right to raise the
Audit Objection Bill dated 30-03-2013 No.35105 for Rs.2,65,774/- against the
plaintiff & it is not time-barred u/s 56 (2) Electricity Act. Issue no.3 & 4 is
accordingly settled against the plaintiff.
Issue no. 5: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree, as prayed for?
30) In view of the discussions above and from a discrete scrutiny of the
entire evidence on record, both oral and documentary, it appears that the
Page 18 of 19
plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant Company didn‟t have any right to
raise the Audit Objection Bill dated 30-03-2013 No.35105 for Rs.2,65,774/-
against the plaintiff & that it is not time-barred u/s 56 (2) Electricity Act.
Hence, it is held that the plaintiff is not entitled to the decree, as prayed for.
Hence, issue no.5 is decided against the plaintiff.
ORDER
THE suit is hereby dismissed. The parties will bear their own cost. Prepare a
decree accordingly.
Given under my hand & seal of the Court on the 11th August‟2017.
