R S E B Vs. BAJRANG LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGEMENT :- This is defendant's first appeal against the judgement and decree passed by Additional District Judge, Alwar, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent, and restraining the defendant by a permanent injunction from recovering an amount of Rs. 41,942.54 from the plaintiff.

(2.) According to the allegations contained in the plaint, the plaintiff used to-run an oil mill in Alwar by Diesel oil but since it was expensive, the plaintiff wanted to run the oil mill with the help of electrical energy and therefore, he applied for electric connection of 200 Horse Power (in short H.P.), on 30th July, 1960. After several requests and reminders, the defendant orally assured the plaintiff that a connection of 170 H.P. will be given to him and the plaintiff was asked to purchase the electric motors. In pursuance of the oral assurance given by the defendant the plaintiff purchased the electric motors for 140 H.P. in April, 1961 vide Ex. 12 and Ex. 13 and got fitted electric motor of 120 H.P. The plaintiff informed the defendant vide latter dated 27-7-1961 (Ex. 14) that he had been sanctioned 170 H.P. electric connection and he had already fitted electric motor for 120 H.P. but the connection was not being released. Thereupon, the defendant obtained in writing from the plaintiff on 2-8-1961 (Ex. 3) and released electric connection of 120 H.P. To reproduce paragraphs 5 and 6 of Ex. 3, it will be profitable which will be necessary for further discussion-

(3.) By this document (Ex. 3), the plaintiff agreed to guarantee the yearly minimum revenue of Rs. 51,738.77 from this connection and since the connection was released of only 120 H.P., the plaintiff could not get his another electric motor of 20 H.P. fitted. The, plaintiff also deposited a sum of Rs. 3,400/- on account of security. The defendant vide his letter dated 30th Nov. 1961 (Ex. 1) asked the plaintiff to furnish an additional security for a sum of Rs. 850/-, as the total security for 170 H.P. came to Rs. 4,250/- at the rate of Rs. 25/- per H.P. In pursuance of this, the plaintiff furnished additional security for Rs. 850/- vide Ex. 2. The defendant vide letter dated 28-2-1962 (Ex. 15) informed the plaintiff that the supply of electrical energy will be restricted during peak load hours from 6 P.M. to 10 P.M. and further that if any consumer was found running the motors during restricted hours, his connection shall be liable for disconnection without any notice. So the plaintiff could not run his motors during the restricted hours on and from 1st March, 1962. On 13-9-1961, the defendant sent the first bill of consumption charges amounting to Rs. 5,608.02 for consumption of 11,960 units which was objected to by the plaintiff vide his letter dated 20-10-1961 (Ex. 4), stating therein that the actual consumption charges only came to Rs. 1,865.75 and further requesting that the bill may be corrected. The defendant corrected the bill and the plaintiff deposited the amount of Rs. 1865.75, the actual consumption charges. Thereafter, the plaintiff continued to deposit the electric bills according to actual consumption. However, after one year, the defendant vide its letter dated 28-9-1962 (Ex. 5) informed the plaintiff that as per agreement (Ex. 3), the plaintiff had promised to pay minimum revenue of Rs. 51,738.77 yearly but the total amount of revenue accrued up to August, 1962 was Rs. 34,606.25. The plaintiff was asked to pay the difference amounting to Rs. 17,132.52. This demand of the defendant was illegal and the plaintiff made a representation to the defendant of 20-10-1962 (Ex. 6) but with no result. The then Chairman of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board ordered that with effect from April, 1963, new thermal rates may be charged and the plaintiff continued to pay the electricity bills of the basis of actual consumption according to the new thermal rates. The Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Electricity Board vide letter dated 22-11-1966 (Ex. 9), demanded payment of Rs. 41,942.54 being the difference of the amount already paid and the minimum guarantee as per agreement Ex. 3. The Executive Engineer also vide his letter dated 30-11-1966 (Ex. 10) asked the plaintiff to deposit the above amount. The plaintiff made representations but the Assistant Engineer disconnected the electric connection on 22-12-1966 which was got restored by the plaintiff on payment of Rs. 30/- as reconnection charges and thereafter, the present suit was filed on 17-1-1967, praying for a permanent injunction against the defendant, restraining it from realising the amount of Rs. 41,942,54 from the plaintiff and also to restrain the defendant from disconnecting the electric connection of the plaintiff.