TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. MURUGAN TALKIES PENNADAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful defendants in both the Courts are the appellants.

(2.) THE case in brief is as follows; THE Plaintiff THEatre was commenced on 16.9.1962. THE plaintiff has secured two service connections from the Electricity Department, bearing Nos.350 and 396. THE plaintiff was allowed to use 8,470 Watts at a time. THE plaintiff has also remitted the electricity charges, On 8.9.1979, the plaintiff was called upon to remit a sum of Rs. 2,212.20 for the period from 1.3.1978 to 30.4.1979, since it was transferred from Tariff No. 5 to Tariff, No.2. THE plaintiff has sent a reply on 1.10.1979 and thereafter he was informed that they have exceeded the sanctioned load for more than 50 per cent, in burning of lights. On 29.12.1983 also the second defendant sent a communication calling upon, the plaintiff to pay the amount, for which a reply was sent on 27.4.1983, On 5.3.1979 the Junior Engineer of the Electricity Department has not inspected the Service connections, Now on the ground of short assessment for the period, of 1988 to 1972. a sum of Rs. 672.25 was also claimed. THE defendant also threatened to disconnect the electric supply. On 9.6.1988 the plaintiff also sent a communication, pointing out that the claim was barred by time. THE Defendant sent a reply enclosing the Audit report also. According to the report, for the period from 15.9.1962 to February 1968 a sum of Rs.5,365.25 is payable. According to the terms and conditions of supply, only for the period of one year, the claim can be made and not beyond that. On 21.10,1983 also the plaintiff was called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 17,940.40 for the period from March, 1964 to April 1969. THE plaintiffs have not used more than 50 per cent of the sanctioned load for the purpose of lighting and, as such, the entire calculation made by the defendant is not proper and correct and therefore, sought the relief of declaration and permanent injunction.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the defendants/appellants mainly contended that the Courts below erred in holding that the board is not empowered to reverse the Bills. THE findings of the Courts below that the claim is time barred is also not correct. THEy have raised substantial question of law based upon Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, and the claim of limitation cannot be made use of by the consumer relating to the threatened disconnection for the nonpayment of the amounts by the departments.