KAMLABEN WD O MOHANLAL MANEKLAL SHAH Vs. GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is filed by the original defendant No. 1 against whom respondent No. 1 plaintiffs suit came to be decreed by the lower appellate Court. Original defendant No. 1 appellant before this Court died pending this second appeal and his heirs have been brought on record and they are now prosecuting this second appeal.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 Gujarat Electricity Board had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 86 of 1971 in the Court of the learned Joint Civil Judge J. D Godhra for recovering Rs. 8200/with interest and costs from original defendant No. 1 as well as the present respondent No. 2. The case of the respondent plaintiff was that it was supplying to various consumers electric power as a licensee under the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act 1945 read with Indian Electricity Act 1910 That as a general supplier of electric power it had entered into a contract with original defendant No. 1 to supply him electricity for the purpose of his quarry Satya Saibaba Quarry works situated at Timba within the ordinary Jurisdiction of the Court of the Civil Judge J.D. Godhra; that defendant No. 1 had applied for electric power for the use of his quarry and that he had agreed to pay Rs. 4800/as minimum electric power supply charges and signed an undertaking on 18-6-1968 in that behalf. According to the plaintiffBoard defendant No. 1 had to pay Rs. 4800/by way of minimum charges per year calculated at the rate of Rs. 400/per month as minimum charges. As defendant No. 1 had applied for 80 H P. connection minimum charges were worked out at Rs. 400/at the rate of Rs. 5/per H.P. The said amount was subject to the prevailing tarrif rate at which the plaintiff board was entitled charge the consumer concerned that the plaintiff had raised minimum charges with effect from 24-7-1969 from Rs. 5/per H.P. to Rs. 6/per H.P. Accordingly the minimum charges thereafter worked out at Rs. 480/per month as per the new tariff rates. The plaintiff board contended that pursuant to defendant No. 1s application and undertaking given by him the plaintiff had put installation upto the quarry of deft. No. 1 and issued to him 3 months notice to take the supply. Defendant No 1. admittedly has not taken the supply. Defendant No. 2 was joined by the plaintiff because he had subsequently purchased Satyanarayan quarry works for which the electric supply was sought for by defendant No. 1. The plaintiff board accordingly claimed Rs. 9400/as minimum charges for the period from 24-7-69 to the end of March 1971 According to the plaintiff the claim came to Rs.8200.00. The plaintiff had given credit of Rs. 1200/and hence plaintiff claimed Rs. 8200/in the suit with interest and costs.

(3.) The aforesaid suit was Registered as Civil Suit No. 86 of 1971 in the Court of the Civil Judge J. D. Godhra.