GUMAN MAL LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS is a defendant's appeal against the decree passed by the trial court for an amount of Rs. 4738/ -. The plaintiff has filed a cross -objection for an amount of Rs. 7437.54/ -.
(2.) THE plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 20,000/ - as damages on account of illegal discontinuance of supply of electricity. It is alleged that the plaintiff is a company, incorporated under the Companies Act and carries on business of cotton ginnig, pressing, spinning and weaving. The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are its officers. The plaintiff company is a consumer of electricity supplied by defendant No. 1 and generated from Bhakra Project. It is alleged that an agreement for supply of energy was entered into between the plaintiff company and defendant No. 1 on 24 -2 -60. The defendant agreed to supply a load of 750 KW subsequently raised to 850 KW at a schedule rate of two annas per unit till revised by the Board and difference if any to be adjusted. This agreement was to be read and construed as subject in all respect of the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act 1910 and law on the subject. The defendant No. I issued notification on 6 -12 -62 giving the rates to be charged in area served by the Bhakra Project and this tariff was made applicable from 1st May, 1960, but it was applicable to the plaintiff company from March, 1960. According to this tarifs the plaintiff company was to pay demand charges Rs. 5.75 per K.V.A. per month and energy charges at the rate specified in the notification. This notification further provided that if the monthly bill is not paid in full within the time specified in the bill surcharge of 1% shall be levied for each 30 days successive period or part thereof until the amount is paid in full. It was also alleged that correct metres were to be supplied by the defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff was to give security for the price of the meters. The defendant did not provide the metres to the plaintiff company inspite of the repeated requests. Consequently demand charges for the consumption of the electricity were made arbitrarily and without any legal basis. The claim of the demand charges was objected to by the plaintiff company and payments of the bill were made under protest from 1960 onwards. The plaintiff had made payments in protest exceeding Rs. 70,000. The defendants were grossly and culpably negligent in not making adjustments of the claims and over payments made by the plaintiff company. It is alleged that the plaintiff made payments of the regular bills till February, 1963. On 6th March, 1963 a statement of accounts was sent by the defendants showing the details of the dues payable by the plaintiff company which was at variance with the regular bills and in contravention of the tariff schedule. It is alleged that false and inflated demand was created on account of demand charges and amount of Rs. 11,027/ -regarding factory lighting from January 1960 to September 1962 was not adjusted and which were illegally collected by the defendants. Similarly Rs. 34,791/ - illegally demanded and paid under protest regarding multiplier and admitted by the defendants to have been wrongly received was not adjusted and there were other errors and omissions in the account. Thus there was long standing and bonafide dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants as to what was the actual amount payable by the plaintiff to the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that according to it an amount of Rs, 70,261.00 was outstanding against the defendants whereas the defendants had claimed Rs. 77,549.62 from the plaintiff. The plaintiff was served with a notice under Section 24(1) of the Indian Electricity Act on 20 -2 -1963. The said notice is challenged by the plaintiff on the grounds that the plaintiff did not neglect to pay the amount claimed within the meaning of Section 24 as there was no amount legally payable by the plaintiff to the defendant. The amount stated in the notice must be accurate and if it is in excess of what is legally due then the notice is bad in law. Powers under Section 24 being drastic and strict compliance of the provisions of this section is mandatory. The plaintiff also alleged that the amount shown to be outstanding in the statement of accounts was entirely different from the claim mentioned in the regular bills and in no regular bills previous balance was shown. The plaintiff also challenged the notice on the ground that the defendants could recover the amount by filing a Civil Suit.
(3.) THE plaintiff alleged that the defendants disconnected and discontinued the supply of electricity on 14 -3 -63 at 5 P.M. and it remained disconnected for 22/1 -2 hours and was reconnected under the orders of Additional Chief Engineer R.S.E.B. Jaipur on 15 -3 -63 at 3.50 P.M. It is stated that this act of defendant No. 2 and 3 is malafide and misuse of authority vested in them by law. It is alleged that the Officers and employees of the plaintiff company were put to a lot of trouble and inconvenience. The business got suspended. The plaintiff suffered great loss in production. There was labour unrest; even the amenities of water and lighting were denied to hundreds of families. The company suffered an irreparable loss in prestige and reputation in business circle. The plaintiff claimed the following amount of damages on different heads: (1) Workers wages for one day includingGinning Labour Rs. 3360/ -(2) Loss of Profit on one day'sproduction Rs. 2500/ -(3) Staff Salary for one day Rs. 1065/ -(4) Depreciation -interest andInsurance for one day Rs. 5277/ -(5) Coal and Water charges forone day Rs. 640/ -(6) Electric demand charges forone day Rs. 200/ -(7) Telegram and Telephone charges Rs. 500/ -(8) Travelling expenses in connectionwith Shut down Rs. 1300/ -(9) One days' cotton (Kapas) which could not be ginned and got damageddue to rain Rs. 4000/ -(10) Mental worries and physical discomfort to the officers and employees of the company Rs. 2158/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Rs. 20,000/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - On these facts the plaintiff prayed for a decree of Rs. 20,000/ - with costs against the defendants. ;