Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 658 (PNJ)

Punjab State Electricity Board v. Rajinder Kumar

2013-05-20

Jaswant Singh

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Jaswant Singh, J.: - Defendant-Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) is in second appeal against concurrent findings returned by both the Courts below whereby the suit of the respondent/plaintiff for declaration was decreed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ferozepur vide judgement and decree dated 7.12.2007 and the findings were affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur vide judgement and decree dated 21.1.2009. 2. Facts in brief are that respondent/plaintiff-Rajinder Kumar is a partner of a partnership firm under the name and style of M/s Pawan Kumar and Company engaged in the milling of paddy and manufacturer of rice in their rice sheller. In the premises of the said rice sheller there is an electricity connection in the name of plaintiff- Rajinder Kumar bearing No.LS-10 of 341 kilowatt (since the year 1995-96). Prior to this large supply electricity connection in the premises, there were two medium scale connections bearing Nos. MS 34 and MS 41. In the year 2000 defendant-PSEB raised a bill No.31763 demanding a payment of Rs.4,86,953/- payable by 24th of July 2000 which pertained not to the consumption charges but as a surcharge due from the plaintiff’s firm for clubbing of aforesaid two MS connections to LS connection for the period from 21.10.1992 to 10.12.1994. Since the payment by the said date was not made, the electricity connection was disconnected. The matter was referred to the Disputes Settlement Committee (for short the DSC) with deposit of 1/3rd outstanding amount. The DSC rejected the claim of the plaintiff’s firm vide order dated 11.12.2000, and thus the remaining 2/3rd amount was claimed by sending a revised Bill no. 13665. In this backdrop the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration challenging both the bills raising the demand for the period from 21.10.1992 to 10.12.1994 and the decision of the DSC dated 11.12.2000 with the consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendant-PSEB from disconnecting the connection bearing No.LS-10 for non-deposit of the remaining 2/3rd amount and further mandatory injunction seeking the refund of the 1/3rd amount deposited at the time of reference to the DSC. 3. Defendant-PSEB contested the suit and claimed that the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff had not filed an appeal against the order dated 11.12.2000 passed by the DSC. 3. Defendant-PSEB contested the suit and claimed that the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff had not filed an appeal against the order dated 11.12.2000 passed by the DSC. It was also asserted that the defendant-PSEB was charging the difference of the amounts already paid by the plaintiff (at the MS rates) and the amount recoverable as per the directive of the Chief Auditor, PSEB Patiala (at the LS rates), moreso in view of the application dated 21.10.1992 of the plaintiff itself seeking the clubbing of the aforesaid connections which was never withdrawn. Since the LS rates were higher, therefore, the difference of the amounts calculated at LS rates of the payment made at the MS rates were being claimed alongwith 20% surcharge. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, issues were framed and the plaintiff to support his case examined himself as PW2 and examined Sh.Ajmer Singh, Additional Superintending Engineer, PSEB as PW1. On the other hand, defendant PSEB examined DW1 Mohinder Pal Chopra, Revenue Accountant. 5. PW1 Ajmer Singh proved his report Exhibit P6 which was in favour of the plaintiff wherein it was stated that the clubbing charges are to be charged from the consumers from the date after 31.12.1994 and under the rules the clubbing charges were to be calculated from 1995 and as such no outstanding amount was due from the plaintiff’s firm. It was also brought on record by DW1 that report Ex.P6 was never challenged before any competent authority. DW1 also stated that the clubbing of two MS connections into LS connection was initially allowed upto 31.12.1994 but the date was extended by circular till 31.12.1995 and two MS connections of the plaintiff were clubbed on 3.4.1995 on his application on 9.1.1995. 6. The learned trial court on issue no.5, as to whether the suit is maintainable, in para 13 of its judgement held as under:- “Law of limitation is fully applicable to defendants. The defendants are claiming the difference of tariff of MS and LS connections and 20% L.T. Surcharge of period 21.10.1992 to 10.12.1994 on 11.12.2000 after the lapse of more than six years. The bill in question was issued at the instructions of Chief Auditor, PSEB, Patiala. The defendants are claiming the difference of tariff of MS and LS connections and 20% L.T. Surcharge of period 21.10.1992 to 10.12.1994 on 11.12.2000 after the lapse of more than six years. The bill in question was issued at the instructions of Chief Auditor, PSEB, Patiala. At best the defendants may claim the amount only for a period of three years from the date of issuance of bill but they have claimed the amount from the plaintiff and their claim is time barred. Because it is settled law that even if the defendants wanted to recover the amount they are bound by Law of Limitation that electricity, being movable goods, the period of limitation is three years and in the present case, the charges are to be recovered in utter disregard of law of Limitation and the defendants cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong acts. So this Court is of the opinion that these issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.” 7. Accordingly, the learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgement and decree dated 7.12.2007 and the learned Appellate Court upheld the finding. The learned appellate Court in para 14 of its judgement further held that PSEB could not claim the difference of tariff of MS and LS connections in view of the Audit Report Exhibit P6 proved by PW1 Ajmer Singh and the evidence of DW1 Mohinder Pal Chopra, Revenue Accountant. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the matter in respect of recovery of dues after clubbing of MS connections to LS connection was pending decision before DSC and the same was decided on 11.12.2000 and thus the findings that the outstanding dues are barred by law of limitation cannot be sustained. 9. After hearing the counsel for the appellant-defendant, I find that the argument raised is totally devoid of any merit. 10. It is not disputed that the outstanding dues related to the period from 21.10.1992 to 10.12.1994 and the bill for the same was raised in the year 2000 vide Bill no.31763. The outstanding dues claimed in the bill were payable by 24.7.2000. It also cannot be disputed that the matter was referred to the DSC only after the bills were not paid by the stipulated date. Therefore, the argument being raised is totally erroneous on the factual matrix itself. The outstanding dues claimed in the bill were payable by 24.7.2000. It also cannot be disputed that the matter was referred to the DSC only after the bills were not paid by the stipulated date. Therefore, the argument being raised is totally erroneous on the factual matrix itself. In the considered opinion of this Court the concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts that the outstanding dues being raised by the defendant PSEB were barred by law of limitation, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and as such no question of law much less substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. 11. Dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------