M. M. Dutt, R. K. Sharma KARTICK CHANDRA SADHUKHAN VS. CALCUTTA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPN ( 1 ) THIS appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff and it arises out of a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. ( 2 ) THE dispute between the parties is over a notice dated August 5, 1971 served by the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation on the plaintiff stating therein that if the electric bill annexed thereto for the sum of Rs. 18,721. 39 was not paid within 7 days, the supply of the electricity would be disconnected. The plaintiff was a consumer and was being supplied electrical energy by the defendant at the plaintiff's place of business at 243f, Acharya Profulla Chandra Roy Road Calcutta through the M. D. meter no. 188839 (treated as 'k' rate meter after August 1970 ). It was the plaintiff's case that he was regularly paying the electric charges month by month. The defendant, however all on a sudden by its letter dated May 11 1971 informed the plaintiff that the plaintiff had been under-charged and was liable tot pay to the defendant charges for 138819 units for the period from April, 1967 to April 1971. There was correspondence between the parties and ultimately the plaintiff was not satisfied with the claim made by the defendant for the said sum of Rs. 18,721. 39 on account of the charges for the said units of electricity consumed for the period from April 1967 to April 1971 and filed the suit for the reliefs aforesaid. ( 3 ) THE defendant entered appearance and contested the suit by a written statement. The case of the defendant was that the bills up to April 1967 were prepared from the correct recording of the units in the meter which was a six-dial meter. During the period between April 1967 and April 1971. The Inspecting Officer, however, recorded the units of consumption erroneously treating the meter as a five-dial meter and, consequently, there were under-reading of the meter of the units of consumption. The consumption was between 3000-4000 units per month before April, 1967 when the reading of the meter was made correctly. But during the period in question, as the reading was made on meter, the consumption f units was wrongly recorded between 300-400 units per month. The mistake was detected for the first time in March, 1971 and the position was regularized. But during the period in question, as the reading was made on meter, the consumption f units was wrongly recorded between 300-400 units per month. The mistake was detected for the first time in March, 1971 and the position was regularized. The total units of consumption as recorded before April, 1967 was 103416 and the reading of the meter on April 9, 1971 was 265260 units. Therefore, the units of electrical energy consumed during the period in question was the difference between those two figures and it came to 161844 units. The plaintiff had paid the charge for 23025 units of electrical energy during the period in question. The said units, viz. , 23025 units were deducted from 161844 units and the effective units for which the plaintiff was to pay was 138819. The rates of charges were different at different times and valuing the said effective units at the prevailing rates, a sum of Rs. 18,721. 39 was found due by the plaintiff to the defendant and he was requested to pay the said sum. It was also offered that the said sum might be paid by him by instalments. By his letter dated May 27, 1971, Ext 1 (d), the plaintiff, while appreciating the defendant's offer to him to pay the said sum by instalments, requested the defendant to provide him with a month wise break-up of the consumption and the billed amount according to the defendant's computation, to enable him to check up whether there was any under-reading or not. As requested, a statement showing the number of units chargeable month by month and units actually charged was forwarded by the defendant to the plaintiff. It also appears from the letter dated July 6,1971 of the defendant, Ext. 1 (b), that the plaintiff called at the office of the defendant on May 26, 1971 when he was explained the reasons for the claim made by the defendant. Again it was reiterated in Ext. 1 (b) that the defendant was agreeable to accept payment of the amount claimed by instalments. Ext. 1 (e), is a letter of the defendant in reply to the letter, Ext. 1 (b), wherein the plaintiff raised certain points. Ultimately, the impugned notice dated August 5, 1971 [ext. 4 (z)16] along with the bill for the said sum of Rs. 18721. Ext. 1 (e), is a letter of the defendant in reply to the letter, Ext. 1 (b), wherein the plaintiff raised certain points. Ultimately, the impugned notice dated August 5, 1971 [ext. 4 (z)16] along with the bill for the said sum of Rs. 18721. 39 was sent to the plaintiff in the notice it was stated that the defendant would be reluctantly compelled to disconnect electric supply in accordance with the provision of section 24 (1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, it the bill was not paid within 7 days from the date of dispatch of the notice. After this, the defendant also by its letter, Ext. 1, gave a reply to the letter of the plaintiff dated July 17, 1971, Ext. 1 (e), clarifying the points that was raised by the plaintiff by Ext. 1 (e) was that although it was mentioned in the statement that was forwarded by the defendant that for the consumption for the month of July 1968 the plaintiff was not billed, the plaintiff, as a matter of fact, paid charges for electrical consumption for that month. It was explained by the defendant in its letter, Ext. 1, that the July 1968 bill was prepared obviously for the consumption recorded in the light and fan meter and no power consumption was included in that accounting month. Again it was requested that the plaintiff would make an early settlement of the bill which was long over due. The plaintiff did not accede to the request of the defendant, and after the service of a lawyer's letter instituted the suit but of which this appeal arises. ( 4 ) THE learned Judge raised certain issues, one of which was whether there was any dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding the defendant's and the defendant regarding the defendant's bill against the plaintiff for consumption of electricity through moter meter no. 188839. It was held by the learned Judge that the issue was not pressed at the time of trial and so it was decided in favour of the plaintiff. No discussion was made by the learned Judge under that issue. Be that as it may, he came to the finding that the plaintiff was under-charged for the period in question due to the faulty reading of the plaintiff's meter by the defendant's employees. Upon that finding, the learned judge dismissed the suit. No discussion was made by the learned Judge under that issue. Be that as it may, he came to the finding that the plaintiff was under-charged for the period in question due to the faulty reading of the plaintiff's meter by the defendant's employees. Upon that finding, the learned judge dismissed the suit. Hence this appeal. ( 5 ) MR. Sett, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiff appellant submits that section 24 (1) will not apply to a case where there is a dispute and as the learned Judge has found that there was such a dispute under issue no. 1, Section 24 (1) is not applicable. Section 24 (1) provides as follows :?where any person neglects to pay any charge for energy or any sum, other than a charge for energy, due from him to a licensee in respect of the supply of energy to him, the licensee may, after giving not less than seven clear days' notice in writing to such person and without prejudice to his right to recover such charge or other sum by suit, cut off the supply and for that purpose cut or disconnect any electric supply-line or other works, being the property of the licensee, through which energy may be supplied, and may discontinue the supply until such charge or other sum, together with any expenses incurred by him in cutting off and re-connecting the supply, are paid, but no longer. ? ( 6 ) THE first contention as to the applicability of section 24 (1) is neglect of the consumer to pay. Where there is a dispute as to the amount of the charge and the consumer does not pay the amount so long as that is not settled, it cannot be said that the consumer neglects to pay within the meaning of section 24 (1 ). But such a dispute must be a bonafide dispute. Where the question is whether section 24 (1) is applicable or not, as the consumer has raised a dispute, the court will consider whether such a dispute is a bona fide dispute or not. But such a dispute must be a bonafide dispute. Where the question is whether section 24 (1) is applicable or not, as the consumer has raised a dispute, the court will consider whether such a dispute is a bona fide dispute or not. Merely because the consumer has raised a dispute withholding payment, will not be sufficient to hold that the has not neglected to pay nay charge for energy or any sum, other than a charge for energy, due from him to a licensee in respect of the supply of energy to him. In that case of Corporation of the City of Nagpur through the Executive Officer of the Corporation v. Nagpur Electric Light and Power Company Ltd. Nagpur, AIR 1958 Bombay, 498 the same view has been taken, viz. , that if there is a bona fide dispute between the parties as to what was payable, the failure to pay, cannot amount to a neglect to pay within the meaning of section 24 (1) and, therefore, action under that section cannot be taken by an electrical undertaking. ( 7 ) NOW the question is whether the dispute which was raised by the plaintiff was bona fide dispute or not so as to take the case out of section 24 (1 ). The facts of the case have already been stated above. The defendant examined two witnesses. D. W. 1 Nayan Sen Gupta was a Meter Inspector in 1967. He inspected the meter of the plaintiff in March 1971 and found that previously the reading was taken in five-dial figures. He found the meter to be a six-dial one and he reported the matter to the office. He proved the entry in the meter book, marked Ext. C. The other witness, D. W. 2 Amal Roy Chowdhury was the Inspector in 1971. In June 1967, he took reading of the plaintiff's meter. He read the meter as a five-dial meter. He says that he had committed a mistake in reading the meter as a five-dial meter. In his evidence, the plaintiff who examined himself in support of his case, proved the correspondence between the parties. He denied his liability to pay the sum demanded by the defendant. According to him, he became a consumer for the first time with effect from February 19, 1968. In his evidence, the plaintiff who examined himself in support of his case, proved the correspondence between the parties. He denied his liability to pay the sum demanded by the defendant. According to him, he became a consumer for the first time with effect from February 19, 1968. It may be state here that the meter stood in the name of one Ganesh Chandra Sadhukhan Prior to March 4, 1968 when it was transferred to the name of the plaintiff upon his application with the content of the said Ganesh chandra Sadhukhan. ( 8 ) THE matter appears to us to be very simple. Some wrong recording was made by the Inspectors of the defendant while reading the meter during the period in question treating the meter as a five-dial meter whereas it was six-dial meter. Obviously, the meter reading was at a very low figure. The meter would record 300 units if the last dial of the six-dial meter was not read. It would record 3000 units if the last dial was read. This has happened so far as the plaintiff's meter is concerned. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was not justified to charge for the units for it was alleged, he did not make the payment. The defendant has been carrying on an oil mill under that power meter. We have looked into the bills and they show that very small sums were paid by the defendant for the consumption of electric energy. In 1967-68, the rate per unit was 15 paisa. If the meter had been read properly, the plaintiff would have been liable to pay much more. It is submitted on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant that the defendant has not been able to clarify the position clearly. It has been state already that the plaintiff had called at the office of the defendant and they had explained the position to him. In our opinion, the points that were raised by the plaintiff had no substance at all. The plaintiff being a businessman it can be presumed that he was quite conscious of the small amount that was paid by him on account of the consumption of electrical energy. It is not disputed by the plaintiff that there was under reading of the meter, for the relevant entries have been proved from the meter books. The plaintiff being a businessman it can be presumed that he was quite conscious of the small amount that was paid by him on account of the consumption of electrical energy. It is not disputed by the plaintiff that there was under reading of the meter, for the relevant entries have been proved from the meter books. The plaintiff also cannot deny the quantity of units actually consumed by him as alleged by the defendant in their letters. It is complained on behalf of the plaintiff that although he had paid electric charges for the entire period in question he is to pay over again for that period. Of course he is to pay for the period in question as he had not paid for the quantity of electricity actually consumed by him. ( 9 ) ANOTHER complaint of the plaintiff is that for July 1968, he had made payments by it was stated by the defendant in their statement that no bill was made for that month. It has been earlier pointed out that the defendant has in their letter Ext. 1, explained that the bill that was paid by the plaintiff was for the consumption as recorded in the meter for light and fan and not for the consumption recorded in the power meter. The plaintiff could cross-examine the D. W. 2 on this point, but save and except showing the bill for July 1968 and two other bills, the defendant did not want any clarification. It is true that D. W. 2 admitted that the said bills were paid, but he did not say that it was paid on account of the consumption as recorded in the motor meter or M. D. meter, as it is called. ( 10 ) AFTER considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, we are of the view that the dispute which had been raised by the plaintiff is not at all a bona fide dispute and, accordingly, the defendant was justified in issuing the impugned notice under section 24 (1 ). The plaintiff was given ample opportunity to pay the amount demanded by instalments. The plaintiff, however, did not avail him self of that opportunity. In the circumstances, the defendant had no other alternative than to take resort to the provision of section 24 (1) as a last resort. The plaintiff was given ample opportunity to pay the amount demanded by instalments. The plaintiff, however, did not avail him self of that opportunity. In the circumstances, the defendant had no other alternative than to take resort to the provision of section 24 (1) as a last resort. ( 11 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, this appeal is dismissed, but there will be no order for costs. ( 12 ) THE plaintiff is, however, given one more chance to pay off the dues of the defendant. We, accordingly, direct that if the plaintiff pays the amount due as claimed by the defendant within three months from date the defendant shall be injuncted form giving any effect or further effect to the impugned notice. In default, however, the defendant will be at liberty to give effect to the impugned notice. As prayed for by Mr. Sett, the sum of Rs. 9000/- stated to have been deposited by the plaintiff with the Registrar, Appellate Side, of this Court may be withdrawn by him without furnishing any security. Sharma, J. : i agree appeal dismissed.