N RANGABASHYAM Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUIT for declaration that the action of the defendants in revising the Bills from March, 1974 upto date claiming a sum of Rs. 2,76,485/- is illegal and consequential injunction and for an order directing the defendants to refund Rs. 5,856-82.

(2.) THE plaintiff's case is briefly as follows: THE plaintiff applied for high tension supply of electricity energy in or about March, 1974. THE high tension supply was given by the defendants in March, 1974. THE rate fixed for the high tension supply throughout the years from March, 1974 to October, 1981 was with multiplication factor 4/3. THE plaintiff had been paying the bills. While so, suddenly the second defendant sent a letter dated 8.4.83/13.4.83 to the plaintiff in which the second defendant has stated that with regard to the bills rendered in respect of high tension supply to the plaintiff, instead of applying correct multiplying actor of 8/3 to arrive at the actual MT and energy consumption, the multiplied factor applied, was only 4/3 and that this mistake was detected at the time of inspection on 26.11.81. From November, 1981, the bills have been rendered applying the correct multiplying factor viz., 8/3 and the same has also been paid by the plaintiff. THE bills for the period from March, 1974 to October 1981 was revised, applying the correct multiplying factor of both MT and energy consumption and due to the revision of bills, Rs. 2,69,934-73 was sought to be debited to the account of the plaintiff. THE bills for December, 1981 to January 1982 were also revised based on the average consumption of 12 months which worked out higher than the recorded MD during the above months. This change in the average of 12 months in the MD was stated to be due to revision of MD from March, 1974 to October 1981. THE worked out statement also accompanied the said letter regarding 92 bills. THE plaintiff stated that payment by him at the increased rate applying multiplying factor of 8/3 was only under protest and to prevent disconnection of supply. It was not in acceptance of the right of the defendants to collect the revised rate at the increased rate with multiplying factor 8/3. Subsequently, the first defendant sent a communication to the plaintiff requiring payment of Rs. 2,76,485/-. It was accepted by the defendant that carelessness and negligence of their own employees resulted in not rendering the bills at the correct rate.

(3.) THE third defendant has filed written statement adopting the written statement filed by the second defendant. THE plaintiff has filed a reply statement refuting the allegations made in the written statement of the second defendant.