A P S E B Vs. C SUBHADRAMRNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board and its suberdinites are the appellants. The respondents laid the action in the suit for a that the notice dated 18-4-1974 demanding them to pay a sum of Rs. 5,295/- is neither valid nor binding on them and for a consequantial mandatory injunction for restoration of the supply of electricity.

(2.) The allegations made in support thereof are that they are consumers of electrical energy to their rice mil! at Gopalapuram under Category V. and its consumer No. is 5804. They entered into an agreement with the appellants for the supply of electrical energy. The respondents never committed default in the payment of charges for the electricity consumed as per the meter card. On 19-10-72, the second appellant made a surprise visit to their mill premises and inspected the meter and found to be intact. On a subsequent visit made in November, 1973, it was noticed that the meter was burnt out due to defect in the supply of electrical energy by the appellants. They immediately reported to the subordinates of the appellants. They came and took away the meter and installed a new meter. But surprisingly they received the suit notice dated 18-4 1974 containing all false allegations and stating that the appellants pilfered electrical energy and estimated its loss in a sum of Rs. 10, 470 - towards the value of the alleged pilferage. The said assessment has no basis and the demand to pay a sum of Rs. 5,295/- as a condition for recon- nection is unwarranted. The failure to pay resulted in disconnection. As a consequence the respondents suffered a loss at Rs. 100/- per day. The respondents reserved their right to file a separate suit for damages, but sought at present the aforestated reliefs.

(3.) The claim was resisted by the appellants contending inter alia, thus: It is a fact that the respondents a partnership concern entered into an agreement with the appellants for the supply of electrical energy under Consumer No. 5804, to run the rice mil! at Gopalapuram. On 23-12-1971, the second appellant inspected for the first time and put his seal on the hinges of the box and obtained the signature of one Subbarao, their clerk, representing the respondents and the driver present thereat which reflected in his report Ex. B-3 of the even date. On October 19,1973, he inspected again in the presence of one Krishna Murthy, a partner of the respondents, Subbarao and the driver of the mill. He noticed in this inspection that the door hinges in the screws of the box are in very loose condition and partly in open conditions. When he pressed the screws they came out easily. At the right side corner of the meter, at the gasket portion, he found a gap existing and a part of the gascut was found cut. He had shown those defects and recorded a statement in their presence and a report Ex. B-2. Ex. B-1 is the separate statement obtained from Sri Krishnamurthy, a partner. He tightened the screws of the box hinges and provided an additional seal to the terminal cover of the box- hinges. Due to Andhra agitation, he could not take immediate action. Under Ex.B-4 letter dated 1-4-73 he received a complaint from the respondents that the meter was screeping and was to replace, to which reply was given under.B-5 dated 2-7-73 asking the respondents to send the meter for M.R.T. Test.