LADLI PRASAD ZUTSHI Vs. UPELECTRIC SUPPLY CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's application in revision under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act. The plaintiff, Pandit Ladli Prasad Zutshi, claimed to recover a sum of Rs. 5, plus Re. 1, as interest by way of damages from the opposite party, the U.P. Electric Supply Co. Ltd., Allahabad, on the ground that the said amount had been illegally exacted from him by the said Company. The relevant facts of the case may briefly be stated: The plaintiff has entered into an agreement with the company for the supply of: electrical energy to his premises No. 22, George Town, Allahabad. The terms of the agreement are embodied in a formal document which is Ex. P on the record. It is not contested that under the terms of this agreement the plaintiff is bound by the company's conditions of supply and also by the company's official scale of charges for the time being in force in respect of his liability to pay to the company for the electrical energy supplied to him or for other services performed by the company. It appears that the plaintiff had a 2 H-P motor installed in his premises for drawing water from a well in his compound for irrigation purposes. He decided to change that motor and to install a smaller one of 1 H-P in its place. On 31 December 1937, he gave a notice to the company to send some one on its behalf to examine the new motor which he was intending to install in place of the old one. After some correspondence between the parties the company sent one of its representatives who tested the whole installation in the plaintiff's premises and for that service the company charged a sum of Rs. 5 from the plaintiff. This was done in spite of repeated protests by the plaintiff who was ultimately compelled to pay the amount in question. Hence the suit out of which the present application arises.

(2.) The plaintiff's case is that the company had no right under the agreement between, the parties to test the plaintiff's installation and to charge any fee therefor. The defence taken by the company was two-fold: firstly, that the plaintiff had changed his motor and before the new motor could be connected it was absolutely essential for the company to inspect and test the whole installation including the motor and the fittings in order to be satisfied that leakages and other defects did not exist and secondly, that the plaintiff had in this case himself requested the company to test his installation and the company having performed that service for him was entitled to charge some reasonable amount. It may be noticed here that the company did not indicate in its written statement any rule contained in the conditions of supply under which the testing of the plaintiff's installation could be justified. There are however several letters addressed by the company to the plaintiff from which it is clear that the position taken by the company was that the testing of the installation was justified by para. 9(2) of the conditions of supply which runs as follows: Connexion to the mains will be made by the company after the inspection and test has proved satisfactory and no charge will be made for the first test made by the company but subsequent tests due to faults disclosed at the initial test or failure of the contractor's representative to keep the appointment as indicated in sub-para 1 will be charged for in accordance with the company's scale of charges.

(3.) It further appears from the judgment of the learned Small Cause Court Judge that the same line of reasoning was adopted by the company in the course of the argument in the lower Court. The learned Small Cause Court Judge appears to have arrived at the result that para. 9(2) of the conditions of supply was not applicable to the test of the plaintiff's installation made by the company in the present case, but he found that the charge made by the company for that purpose was justified by item 3 of miscellaneous charges to be found on page 3 of the Scale of Charges which runs as follows: Testing and installation other than initial test under the terms of para. 9 (2) of the Conditions of Supply.