Full Judgment Text
$~R-20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of Decision: 12 August, 2016
+ RFA 158/2005
NDPL ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Sheetesh Khanna with Mr.Sushil
Jaswal, Advocates
versus
REDYANT RUBBER ..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Sonali Malhotra with Mr.Amit
Sanduja, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
st
Impugned order of 01 December, 2004 declares that the
impugned demand bill is illegal and restrains the appellant herein
from disconnecting the electricity supply to the respondent-plaintiff.
The factual background of this case already stands noted in the
impugned order, and so needs no reproduction.
At the hearing, learned counsel for the appellant has assailed
the impugned order on the ground that the sanctioned load was 18.65
KW at the premises, in question, but the connected load found by the
Joint Inspection Team was 45.59 KW and so, the demand bill was
justified and legal.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the stand now
taken has not been disclosed in the appeal and in any case, the stand
RFA 158/2005 Page 1
of appellant has been dealt with in para 13 of the impugned order.
Reliance has been placed by respondent’s counsel upon the
decision in Col. R.K. Nayar (Retd.) Vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
140 (2007) DLT 257 to submit that comparison of commuted
consumption and recorded consumption cannot lead to inference of
Fraudulent Abstraction Energy (FAE).
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order, the
evidence on record and decision cited, this court finds that it is noted
by the Trial Court in paragraph No. 13 of the impugned order that
comparison of consumption pattern would not be justified because the
electric meter was found to be intact except that the paper seal pasted
on it by appellant had given way due to rusting. In the decision given
by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in R.K. Nayar (Supra) it has
been already declared that for detection of Fraudulent Abstraction
Energy (FAE) an accu check meter is required to be used and
comparison of the computed consumption with the recorded
consumption by itself cannot lead to an inference of FAE.
In the considered opinion of this court, in view of the evidence
on record and dictum of the Supreme Court in R.K Nayar (Supra),
the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
As such, this appeal is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own
costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 12, 2016
neelam
RFA 158/2005 Page 2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of Decision: 12 August, 2016
+ RFA 158/2005
NDPL ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Sheetesh Khanna with Mr.Sushil
Jaswal, Advocates
versus
REDYANT RUBBER ..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Sonali Malhotra with Mr.Amit
Sanduja, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
st
Impugned order of 01 December, 2004 declares that the
impugned demand bill is illegal and restrains the appellant herein
from disconnecting the electricity supply to the respondent-plaintiff.
The factual background of this case already stands noted in the
impugned order, and so needs no reproduction.
At the hearing, learned counsel for the appellant has assailed
the impugned order on the ground that the sanctioned load was 18.65
KW at the premises, in question, but the connected load found by the
Joint Inspection Team was 45.59 KW and so, the demand bill was
justified and legal.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the stand now
taken has not been disclosed in the appeal and in any case, the stand
RFA 158/2005 Page 1
of appellant has been dealt with in para 13 of the impugned order.
Reliance has been placed by respondent’s counsel upon the
decision in Col. R.K. Nayar (Retd.) Vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
140 (2007) DLT 257 to submit that comparison of commuted
consumption and recorded consumption cannot lead to inference of
Fraudulent Abstraction Energy (FAE).
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order, the
evidence on record and decision cited, this court finds that it is noted
by the Trial Court in paragraph No. 13 of the impugned order that
comparison of consumption pattern would not be justified because the
electric meter was found to be intact except that the paper seal pasted
on it by appellant had given way due to rusting. In the decision given
by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in R.K. Nayar (Supra) it has
been already declared that for detection of Fraudulent Abstraction
Energy (FAE) an accu check meter is required to be used and
comparison of the computed consumption with the recorded
consumption by itself cannot lead to an inference of FAE.
In the considered opinion of this court, in view of the evidence
on record and dictum of the Supreme Court in R.K Nayar (Supra),
the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
As such, this appeal is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own
costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 12, 2016
neelam
RFA 158/2005 Page 2