- (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. 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. 18721.39 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.;