The Superintending Engineer, South Arcot Electricity System, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Villupuram vs Raju Industries

The defendant is the appellant herein.

The plaintiff''s case is that he is running an industry, known as Raj Industries. The service connection is No.21. The defendant without following

any procedure, disconnected the service connection. For restoration of the same, the plaintiff filed a suit in the vacation court in O.S.No.44 of

1983 and the suit was transferred to the file of the District Munsif, Villupuram. For restoration of service connection, the plaintiff paid a sum of

Rs.40 and reconnection was effected on 19.6.1983. The plaintiff is not liable to pay the charges. After the disconnection of service, the factory

was closed down for a month. Considering the plight of the workers, the reconnection charge was deposited, and reconnection was obtained. The

disconnection was on 20.5.1983. The reconnection was on 19.6.1983. Till reconnection was effected, the factory did not work, whileso, the

defendant has called upon the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.1,050 towards the consumption charges for the said period and is threatening to

disconnect the service. Hence the suit.

The defendant contended as follows:-

It is not true to say that the disconnection was effected without following the Rules. There is the use of energy by the plaintiff. The factory was

running against peak hours restriction. Hence, the service connection was disconnected. As per the Rules, the Department has got power to

disconnect on the very same day when the misuse is detected. As per the circular of the Board as well as the Government Order, such

disconnection can be effected for a month. The claim made upon the plaintiff is lawful. Whether the plaintiff uses energy or not, he is liable to pay

the minimum charges, therefore, the amount claimed has to be paid by the defendant as and by way of minimum charges. Therefore, the suit is not

maintainable.

The District Munsif, Villupuram, decreed the suit with costs. On appeal, the same was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. Hence, this

second appeal by the Board.

At the time, when the second appeal was admitted, the following substantial question of law was formulated for consideration:-

Whether, in view of clause 31 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of supply, the courts below were right in their

conclusion that the respondent is not liable to pay the minimum charges?

The point:- There was disconnection of the service on 20.5.1983. It is not necessary to consider whether the said disconnection is valid in the

eye of law, since it does not fall for consideration in the suit. Reconnection was effected on 19.6.1983, is also admitted. The defendant issued a

notice, claiming payment of Rs.1,050 as payable by the plaintiff towards the service connection for the period from 20.5.1983 to 19.6.1983.

According to the plaintiff, he is not liable to pay the said amount since during that period, service was disconnected and there was no drawing of

electricity and therefore, there is no liability, as such. On the other hand, the defendant would contend that in view of Clause 31 of the Terms and

conditions of Supply, the liability for payment of minimum charges is there very much, and it cannot be abandoned by the plaintiff.

Clause 31 of the terms and conditions of supply, which governs the parties herein, reads as follows:-

Minimum charges shall be payable by the consumer as specified in the tariffs for different categories of consumers. This obligation shall be

absolute. The minimum charges will be payable by the consumer even if no electricity is consumed, for any reason whatsoever and also if the

charges for electricity actually consumed are less then the minimum charges. The minimum charges will be payable even if electricity is not

consumed because supply has been disconnected by the Board because of non payment of electricity charges, pilferage, or other malpractice or

for any other valid reason.

Therefore, Clause 31 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply definitely holds that the consumer is bound to pay the minimum charges. Whether

the energy is consumer or not. It further emphasises the fact that even if the energy is not consumed because of disconnection of supply by the

Board, still the liability of the consumer cannot be avoided and is bound to pay the minimum charges. Therefore, a reading of clause 31 clearly

imposes the obligation upon the consumer to pay the minimum charges.

Here, the service connection has been disconnected on 20.5.1983. According to the defendant, as the factory was running against the peak

hour restriction, the service connection was disconnected. Therefore, the disconnection it for malpractice. It is also covered by the clause ""any

other valid reasons"". According to the Board, the disconnection was therefore made, as there was malpractice in operating the factory against the

peak hour restriction. Even otherwise according to the Board, there was valid reason for disconnection. If there is a valid reason for disconnection

or the disconnection is made because of the reason stated in Clause 31, then it follows that still the consumer would be liable to pay the minimum

charges.

The Supreme Court has held in the decision reported in Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna and Others Vs. Green Rubber Industries and

Others, that the consumer''s liability under agreement for payment of, irrespective of consumption of any electricity till termination of the contract is

reasonable and valid. Such a clause has to be presumed to be fair and reasonable and the consumer is thus liable to pay the amount. In an earlier

decision reported in The Amalgamated Electricity Company Ltd. Vs. The Jalgaon Borough Municipality, it was held that a licensee is entitled to

recover minimum charges in pursuant of that clause. There is yet another decision of the Apex Court reported in The Amalgamated Electricity

Company Ltd. Vs. The Jalgaon Borough Municipality, , where the Apex Court has held that such 3 clause for payment of minimum charges is an

obligation and the same is valid in law. The Bombay High Court has held in the decision reported in Mukand Iron and Steel Works Ltd. Vs.

Maharashtra State Electricity Board and Another, , that even in case of any inability of Board to supply the contract demand due to power but,

even then, the consumer is liable to pay the minimum demand charge.

Therefore, in view of the wording of clause 31 and the case law on the point and the reason stated for the disconnection it is clear that the

liability of the consumer to pay the minimum charge is always there and it cannot be avoided by the consumer. Hence, it follows that the judgment

and decree of the courts below cannot be sustained.

In the result, this appeal is allowed with costs. The judgment and decrees of the courts below are hereby set aside. The suit will stand

dismissed with costs.