ASSISTANT ENGINEER, DISTRIBUTION, TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD; SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, MADURAI DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE Vs. VASU DEVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this second appeal is to the judgment and decree, dated 28.11.2005 passed in A.S.No.97 of 2005 by the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.308 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Melur, dated 23.03.2005.

(2.) The respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.308 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Melur, for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction, wherein the present appellants have been shown as defendants.

(3.) It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff is running a Modern Rice Mill as Hulling Agent for Tamil Nadu Government. The defendants Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, supplies electricity to the plaintiff's Rice Mill in Service Connection No.60 for running machineries (power load) and another service connection for lighting, fan etc.(lighting load). The Government (Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.,) used to periodically give licence to the petitioner's Rice Mill as Hulling Agent and supply bulk quantity of paddy to the plaintiff for hulling. The supply of electricity by the Tamilnadu Electricity Board varied according to season and according to generation of electricity and grid supply. As the Mill is in the rural area, 3 Phase current will be supplied only from 10.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m. and alternatively for six hours in day time. Hence, the plaintiff permanently kept a generator and used it for running his Rice Mill whenever there was no supply of electricity or whenever there was erratic supply. During the period of non-supply of paddy, the Rice Mill will remain idle. The Meter reading in the plaintiff's Rice Mill is taken by the Assistant Engineer once in every two months and the electric units consumed and the charges collected are entered in the Meter Reading Card. Whenever the Mill was not running due to non-supply of paddy by the Government or whenever due to erratic voltage in one of the 3 phases of supply of electricity and consequently, the plaintiff runs the Rice Mill with the generator or whenever the electric meter becomes defective and gets struck up, the plaintiff used to intimate the same orally as well as by letter to the defendants. When the Mill did not function due to delay in appointing the plaintiff as Hulling Agent and due to non-supply of paddy for hulling between the later part of October 1996 and the earlier part of January 1997, the plaintiff had intimated by its letter to the defendants. The defendants took meter reading in December 1996 was satisfied about the non-running of the Mill and consequently collected minimum charges of Rs.7,900/-. During April 1997 to July 1997, the electric supply was erratic with low voltage in one phase of the 3 phases supply. During that period, the Mill was not run. On 01.09.1997, the meter got struck up. This was informed to the defendants and they came on 30.09.1997 and removed the defective meter and installed a new one. On 23.10.1997, the defendants took meter reading and collected charges for 35 days between the date of reading in August & February 1998 and the date of fixing of new electric meter on average basis. Towards later part of 11.03.1998, another new meter was fixed in the place of the earlier one. During April 1998, the defendants took meter reading and collected average charges also for 16 days from previous reading date 24.02.1998 to 11.03.1998. The newly fixed meter also is a defective one, which shows excessive reading. This was intimated to the defendants during May, June & July 1998. On 27.08.1998, the defendant came and found the defective one and fixed another meter. Due to such excessive reading, the bill amount for June 1998 came to Rs.88,682/- and for August 1998 it came to Rs.1,01,416/-. While so, the 1st defendant sent a notice to the plaintiff on 06.11.1998 that being the meter is a defective one, the average consumption was calculated for the period from December 1996 to February 1998 and that amount comes to Rs.4,00,244/- and in default of payment, the electric service connection would be disconnected. Hence, the suit has been filed for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction.