Orissa State Electricity Board. Vs. Orissa Tiles Limited
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.1496 of 1993.
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.8945 of 1985)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 20.2.1985 of the Orissa High Court in First Appeal No. 139 of 1974.)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.8945 of 1985)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 20.2.1985 of the Orissa High Court in First Appeal No. 139 of 1974.)
Petitioner: Orissa State Electricity Board.
Respondent: Orissa Tiles Limited
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.1496 of 1993.
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.8945 of 1985)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 20.2.1985 of the Orissa High Court in First Appeal No. 139 of 1974.)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.8945 of 1985)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 20.2.1985 of the Orissa High Court in First Appeal No. 139 of 1974.)
Judges: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY & N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 31, 1993
Appearances:
Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta, Advocate for the Appellant.
Head Note:
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
Minimum Charges
Minimum charges – Respondent, an industry, entered into an agreement in 1965 for supply of electricity – Agreement valid for five years – Supply disconnected in 1968 for non-payment of electricity charges – Board claimed minimum charges for the period subsequent to the disconnection of electricity – Whether the consumer is liable to pay the minimum charges? – Held yes.
(Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna and Ors. v. M/s. Green Rubber Industries and Ors., JT 1989 (4) SC 421 – Applied.
Cases Reffered:
Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna and Ors. v. M/s. Green Rubber Industries and Ors., JT 1989 (4) SC 421 = 1990 (1) SCC 731 – Applied. (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. :
1. Heard the counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent though served. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by the Orissa State Electricity Board is preferred against the judgment of the Orissa High Court allowing partly an appeal preferred by the respondent. The dispute pertains to the liability of the consumer (respondent in this appeal) to pay the minimum charges during the period subsequent to the date of disconnection of supply of energy to him for the non-payment of electricity dues.
3. The respondent is an industry. It entered into an agreement with the appellant for supply of electricity on March 5, 1965. The agreement was valid for a period of five years. He started availing of the energy with effect from July 31, 1965. The supply to his industry was disconnected on April 30, 1968 for non-payment of electricity charges. Since the consumer also failed to pay the minimum charges for the period subsequent to the date of disconnection, the Board filed a suit for the amount due on account of the electricity consumed between April 1, 1968 and April 30, 1968 and for the minimum charges for the period May 1, 1968 to March 5, 1970. (It may be remembered that the agreement between parties was valid upto March 5, 1970). The Trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for along with interest of 6% per annum on the amount decreed from the date of suit till the date of decree and also future interest at the same rate till full satisfaction. On appeal, the High Court sustained the decree of the Trial Court only for the period upto the date of disconnection (April 30, 1968) but disallowed the claim for the period subsequent to the date of disconnection. The reasoning of the High Court is that inasmuch as the supply was disconnected and the respondent-consumer did not avail of any energy whatsoever during the period subsequent to the disconnection, it is not liable to pay the minimum charges.
4. In this appeal, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the question arising herein is concluded in favour of the Board by the decision of this Court in Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna and Ors. v. M/s. Green Rubber Industries and Ors*. On a perusal of the judgment, we find that that was also a case where the claim inter alia pertained to the period subsequent to the date of disconnection till the expiry of the agreement. In that case too, minimum charges were claimed by the Board even for the period during which the supply remained disconnected and no energy whatsoever was availed of by the consumer. We also find that clause (4) of the agreement considered in the said decision and clauses (6) and (13) of the agreement concerned herein are substantially same. Clause (13) of the agreement between the parties hereto does oblige the consumer to pay a certain minimum charges in any event. The clause reads as follows:
“Clause 13:
The consumer shall (subject to the provisions hereinafter contained) pay to the Engineer for the power demand and electrical energy supplied under this Agreement, the charges to be ascertained as mentioned below viz. (Government resolution on tariff to be inserted here).
LARGE INDUSTRIES: For demand of 125 K.V.A. and above for supply at 11 K.V. at
(i) Rs.5.50 paise per K.V.A per month plus
(ii) Rs.0.08 paise per K.W.H. per month subject to an overall maximum rate of Rs.0.09 paise per K.W.H. and without prejudice to payment of minimum charge of 75 per cent of the contract demand at the above rate of Rs.5.50 paise per K.V.A per month and subject further to absolute minimum payment on 125 K.V.A in the first part of the tariff.
For less than 250 K.V.A. the demand may be metered in K.W. and charged for at Rs.6.00 per K.W. per month. Besides the charges for K.W.H. consumed at the rate specified above. For supply at M.T. less than 11 K.V.A. and M.T. less than 11 K.V.A and M.T. the above rate will be increased by 10%.”
5. The reasons for such a stipulation and its justifiability are duly and fully explained by this Court in the aforesaid decision. It is no necessary for us to reiterate the same.
6. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court is restored. No costs.
1. Heard the counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent though served. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by the Orissa State Electricity Board is preferred against the judgment of the Orissa High Court allowing partly an appeal preferred by the respondent. The dispute pertains to the liability of the consumer (respondent in this appeal) to pay the minimum charges during the period subsequent to the date of disconnection of supply of energy to him for the non-payment of electricity dues.
3. The respondent is an industry. It entered into an agreement with the appellant for supply of electricity on March 5, 1965. The agreement was valid for a period of five years. He started availing of the energy with effect from July 31, 1965. The supply to his industry was disconnected on April 30, 1968 for non-payment of electricity charges. Since the consumer also failed to pay the minimum charges for the period subsequent to the date of disconnection, the Board filed a suit for the amount due on account of the electricity consumed between April 1, 1968 and April 30, 1968 and for the minimum charges for the period May 1, 1968 to March 5, 1970. (It may be remembered that the agreement between parties was valid upto March 5, 1970). The Trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for along with interest of 6% per annum on the amount decreed from the date of suit till the date of decree and also future interest at the same rate till full satisfaction. On appeal, the High Court sustained the decree of the Trial Court only for the period upto the date of disconnection (April 30, 1968) but disallowed the claim for the period subsequent to the date of disconnection. The reasoning of the High Court is that inasmuch as the supply was disconnected and the respondent-consumer did not avail of any energy whatsoever during the period subsequent to the disconnection, it is not liable to pay the minimum charges.
4. In this appeal, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the question arising herein is concluded in favour of the Board by the decision of this Court in Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna and Ors. v. M/s. Green Rubber Industries and Ors*. On a perusal of the judgment, we find that that was also a case where the claim inter alia pertained to the period subsequent to the date of disconnection till the expiry of the agreement. In that case too, minimum charges were claimed by the Board even for the period during which the supply remained disconnected and no energy whatsoever was availed of by the consumer. We also find that clause (4) of the agreement considered in the said decision and clauses (6) and (13) of the agreement concerned herein are substantially same. Clause (13) of the agreement between the parties hereto does oblige the consumer to pay a certain minimum charges in any event. The clause reads as follows:
“Clause 13:
The consumer shall (subject to the provisions hereinafter contained) pay to the Engineer for the power demand and electrical energy supplied under this Agreement, the charges to be ascertained as mentioned below viz. (Government resolution on tariff to be inserted here).
LARGE INDUSTRIES: For demand of 125 K.V.A. and above for supply at 11 K.V. at
(i) Rs.5.50 paise per K.V.A per month plus
(ii) Rs.0.08 paise per K.W.H. per month subject to an overall maximum rate of Rs.0.09 paise per K.W.H. and without prejudice to payment of minimum charge of 75 per cent of the contract demand at the above rate of Rs.5.50 paise per K.V.A per month and subject further to absolute minimum payment on 125 K.V.A in the first part of the tariff.
For less than 250 K.V.A. the demand may be metered in K.W. and charged for at Rs.6.00 per K.W. per month. Besides the charges for K.W.H. consumed at the rate specified above. For supply at M.T. less than 11 K.V.A. and M.T. less than 11 K.V.A and M.T. the above rate will be increased by 10%.”
5. The reasons for such a stipulation and its justifiability are duly and fully explained by this Court in the aforesaid decision. It is no necessary for us to reiterate the same.
6. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court is restored. No costs.
