PRASAD CHOUDHURI Vs. ORIENTAL GAS COMPANY UNDERTAKING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, at the instance of the plaintiff, is against the judgment and decree dated 11th February, 1985, passed by the learned Judge, 4th Court, City Civil Court at Calcutta, in Title Suit No.2398, dismissing the suit on contest, but without cost.

(2.) The plaint case is that the appellant is the owner of premises No. 27A, Kalidas Patitundi Lane, Calcutta-26, situated under Bhowanipur Police Station. On the appellant's application to the respondent company, a State Government Undertaking, for supply of gas to his aforesaid premises for domestic consumption, the respondent company installed two gas meters Nos. 60606 and 60772 in the said premises. The numbers of the two meters were subsequently changed to 60975 and 11341 respectively, under Consumer Nos. A/c. No. l6F/610/10 and A/c. No. 16F/, 610/11. The further case of the appellant is that gas was being supplied . to his premises from the road pipe by means of one pipe. The said pipe was bifurcated to supply gas simultaneously to the two meters installed in the appellant's premises. The appellant received monthly bills in respect of his two meters and the same were duly paid against proper receipts upto and for the month of December, 1975. Since 21st December 1977, however, the meter reading of Meter No.60975 (A/c. No. 16F/610/11) remained constant at 7246 units, as there was no supply of gas. As far as the appellant's other meter is concerned, it was admitted by the respondent company that there was no supply of gas at the relevant time and hence less charges were levied in respect thereof in the bills dated 24th July 1978 and 11th November, 1978. According to the appellant, the bills for Meter No. 60975 were raised on the basis of minimum charge of Rs. 5/- together with meter rent. But, in terms of the agreement executed between the appellant and the respondent company, the respondent company was not entitled to levy minimum charges when there was no supply of gas. In terms of the agreement, the respondent company was entitled only to the meter rent during the period then there was no supply of gas. The bills raised by the Respondent Company in respect of the appellants two meters are discriminatory and repugnant to the terms of the agreement and principles of equity; On 31st March, 1978, the appellant received a final registered notice, together with a bin dated 16th March, 1978, for a sum of Rs. 153.89 paise in respect of Meter No.11341 (A/c. No. 16F/610/10), as alleged accumulation for a period of nine months. The bill was prepared on an average basis and the same was arbitrary, unwarranted and illegal, since, accordingly to the appellant, there had been stoppage of supply of gas for over seven months through the consumer pipe line supplying gas to the appellants two meters. subsequently, the appellant received three other bills dated 12th June, 1978, 27th July, 1978 and 11th November, 1978, in respect of Meter No.11341 (A/c. No. 16F/610110), which were not based on meter reading and were, therefore, illegal, untenable and unwarranted. According to the appellant, he also received six bills in respect of his other meter No.60975 on the basis of meter reading. It is the appellant's case that the rules relating to raising of bills being the same in respect of both the meters, and there being no supply of gas to both the meters, the raising of the bills in respect of the two meters on a different basis is unwarranted and unsupportable and repugnant to the terms of the agreement between the appellant and the respondent company. The appellant sent his representative to the respondent company to draw the attention of the respondent company to the illegality of the bill dated 16th March 1978, in respect of Meter No.11341, but as the respondent company did .not review the bill, the same was paid by the appellant under protest. Since the respondent company failed to explain the discrepancy in the bills in respect of the two meters of the appellant, the appellant was compelled to file the aforesaid said suit for a declaration that the bill dated 16th March 1978 in connection with Meter No.11341 (A/c. No. 16F;610/10) and the notice dated 30th March 1978 are illegal, inoperative, void and irrecoverable. The appellant also prayed for a declaration that the respondent company could not discriminate in raising bills on the appellant's two meters and the amount of the impugned bill was refundable to the appellant and/or was liable to be adjusted against future bills. The appellant prayed for an order of permanent injunction to restrain the respondent company from raising bills in respect of A/c. No. 16F/610;10 and A/c No. 16F/610/11 on any basis other than meter reading.

(3.) The suit was contested by the respondent company by filling a written statement denying the averments in the plaint and contending that in case the meters did not correctly register the full quantity of gas supplied, the bills in respect of the meters would be raised in accordance with the average monthly consumption over the previous twelve months.