MANJEET KUMAR Vs. NORTH DELHI POWER LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 02.12.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 5/2006, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal under section 96 of CPC.

(2.) In nutshell, the facts of the case are that three electric connections being K. Nos. 33200475344, 33205012639 and 33200137295 were installed at B-223, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi and were sanctioned for industrial purpose in the name of the appellant herein. The appellant paid the bills received against all the aforesaid connection numbers. On 07.02.2005, all the three connections got amalgamated and consequently an HT connection of 225 KW with K. No. 331032051393 was provided w.e.f. February 2005. The appellant made regular payments of the bills received in respect of the new HT connection. In the month of August 2005, the bill with an arrear of Rs. 4,09,840.69 was raised on account of short charges for the earlier three meters, which was paid by the appellant in three instalments i.e. in the bill of August, September and October 2005 along-with the dues for respective months. In October 2005, another sum of Rs. 5,09,250/- was added by the respondent alleging that the data of meter against earlier K. No. 33200137295 was downloaded on 18.07.2005 and while analyzing, it was found that one Dial Over was missing from the billing and the same was charged in the bill of October 2005. The appellant challenged the same by way of preferring a suit before the court below on the ground that the said earlier connection was installed on 22.11.2003 and he was regularly paying the bills, therefore there was no question of any missing dial over. The said meter was removed on 07.02.2005 at a reading of 87695 and the bills in respect of that meter were paid up to date. The data downloading was stated to have been done on 18.07.2005 by the respondent at their end and that too without any information or knowledge of the appellant. The respondent declared that there was one dial over. The appellant raised a plea before the trial court that considering the reading of meter as 87695 on the date of removal of the meter i.e. on 07.02.2005 there was no question of claiming any short damages in bill of August 2005 as the appellant was never offered any chance to witness the analysis of CMRI data. Further plea of the appellant was that the CMRI data and story of one additional dial over was totally fabricated by the respondent therefore the demand raised by the respondent was illegal.

(3.) In response to the suit filed by the appellant before the trial court, the respondent filed its written statement justifying that the demand was raised correctly on account of the third dial over of the reading in respect of the aforesaid meter, which was removed on 07.02.2005. It was stated that the meter data was downloaded with the help of CMRI on 18.07.2005 which was analyzed and it was found that there was one extra dial over of one lac reading. Since the appellant had consumed the energy through the aforesaid meter and the same could not be charged by the respondent due to the extra dial-over of the reading of the meter, therefore the matter was processed and the demand of Rs. 5,09,250/- was raised as reflected in bill for October 2005. The explanation given by the respondent was that the aforesaid meter was of ABB make and as per software installed in the said meter, it was not displaying the reading of more than 5 digits and for that technical reason, the demand could not be raised earlier. It was further stated that the appellant had no right to challenge the CMRI data which was based on scientific and logical principles. To support its averment, the respondent had also explained its reasoning in calculating the amount of arrears with regard to justify its demand.