AGENCY SALES LIMITED Vs. DELHI VIDYUT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by an unsuccessful plaintiff who had filed a suit for damages against the respondents herein but the trial Court vide judgment dated 19th January,2005 has rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('cpc' in short ).

(2.) THE relevant facts are that the appellant-plaintiff, a Company having registered office in England and run by Non Resident Indians, had purchased property no. 11/78, West Punjabi Bagh, Delhi in a public auction conducted by the Income Tax Department on 15th February, 1995 to start its office in India also. The Company obtained its physical possession on 31-05-1995. After taking over the possession of the said property the plaintiff found that there was no electricity connection installed there and so to get the electricity connection it approached Delhi Vidyut Board, respondent no. 1 herein, sometime in the first week of August, 1995. The request of the plaintiff for sanction of electricity connection, however, was not accepted for quite some time and the decision was being postponed for one reason or the other and bribe was also being demanded by the officials of respondent no. 1 through touts. Finally, the plaintiff was constrained to file a writ petition in this Court seeking a direction to Delhi vidyut Board to sanction the electricity connection applied for. Notice of the writ Petition was issued for 23rd January,1996. However, before that date the electricity meter was installed by the respondent no. 1 herein in the afore-said premises. On 23rd January, 1996 when the writ petition was taken up for hearing the Court was informed by the counsel for Delhi Vidyut Board that electricity meter had already been installed and consequently the Writ Petition was disposed of as having become infructutous. The plaintiff, however, felt RFA 286/2005 2 aggrieved by the delay caused by the officials of respondent no. 1 granting the electricity connection and so it had served a notice dated 24-02-1996 under Section 80 CPC upon the Delhi Government, respondent no. 2 herein, and Delhi Vidyut Board claiming damages to the extent of Rs. 10,00,000/ -. Since the demand of damages was not met by the respondents the plaintiff Company filed a suit on 29th April, 2007 for recovery of Rs. 10,00,100/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 24% p. a. The plaintiff claimed that it had suffered loss of business because it could not set up its office in the aforesaid premises because of the delay in installation of electricity meter and on that account a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- was claimed as damages. Rs. 3,00,000/- were claimed as damages on account of expenses incurred by the director of the plaintiff Company in coming to India from United Kingdom on many occasions in connection with the sanction of the electricity connection. Rs. 10,000,00/- were claimed on account of compensation due to physical and mental agony suffered in following up the matter with the respondents. On account of loss of business also a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- was claimed. Rs. 25,000/- were claimed on account of legal expenses etc. Although the total amount which according to the plaintiff it was entitled to claim as compensation was Rs. 24,25,000/- but the relief in the suit was restricted to a sum of Rs. 10,01,000/- only. Joint and several decree for this amount was prayed for against both the respondents-defendants.

(3.) THE respondents-defendants filed a joint written statement and resisted the plaintiff's claim, inter-alia, on the grounds that the suit was time barred having been filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Article 72 of the Limitation Act, 1963; the suit had not been filed, signed and verified by a duly authorized person; the suit was not maintainable against Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi in view of the provisions of Section 52 of the Government of National Capital Territory Act, 1991 and that the suit was liable to be dismissed for want of notices under Section 80 CPC or Section 477 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. On merits, the suit claim was resisted on the grounds that the sanction of the electricity connection applied for by the plaintiff had got delayed because the plaintiff was asking for restoration of old connection in the name of original owner of the property which was disconnected in 1986 for non-payment of electricity dues and its restoration was not possible without completion of certain formalities which the plaintiff was not willing to fulfil. The plaintiff then had applied for new connection on 04/12/95 alongwith the requisite documents and the connection was released on 19/12/95.