ANDHRA PRADESH SLATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP Vs. KRISHIVALI KHANDASARI SUGAR INDUSTRY ARTAM REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (hereinafter called the Board) is the appellant in this appeal. It filed O.S. No. 13/73 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court Pdrvathipuraai against defendants 1 and 2 for recovery of what was described as maximum demand charges, C.C. charges, meter rant, AMG Charge, surcharge etc., for the psriod from 1-3-1970 to 30-5-1973 with interest thereon.

(2.) The allegations in the plaint are as follows:- The 2nd defendant on behalf of the 1st defendant approached the Board for the purpose of light and power for Krishivali Khaudasari Sugar Industry at Artam for a demand not exceeding 150 KVA. Accordingly an agreement was entered into on 1-2-1966 for a period of ten years which shall come into force from the date of the commencement of the supply of energy or tho date of expiry of the thrae months notice in writing to the consumer and such notice was given on 21-12-1966 and the same was received on 24-12-1965 by the 2nd defendant and consequently the suit contract came into force on 24-3-1967. But the defendants failed to pay the annual minimum amount of Rs. 12,000 every year and the said amount accrued at Rs. 37,716-40 Ps. from 24-3-1967 to the end of 2 November, 1969. However the plaintiff waived Rs. 27,716-40 Ps. and towards the balance of Rs. 10,000 the defendants paid only Rs. 3,000 and entered into an agreement on 29-1-1970 for extension of the agreement for a further period of two years two months and twenty one days and the electricity connection was given on 1-3-1970 to the factory of the defandants but the supply was disconnected on 28-5-1970 after due notice as defendants committed default in payment of current charges and demand charges due from month to month. It is also alleged that as pet B. P. Ms. No. 857, dated 27-10-69 the terms and conditions of supply are varied and hence the Board is entitled to collect minimum charges even if electricity is not consumed or even if supply has been disconnected. It is also averred that the security deposit of Rs. 11,400 was adjusted towards what was described as unconnected minimum charges and also part of charges for March, 1970. Hence the present suit was filed for recovery of Rs.46,726-60 Ps. towards the minimum demand charge for the period March, 1970 to May, 1973 and also for the recovery of Rs. 6,222-01 Ps. towards the surcharge for the delay in payment of the consumption bills.

(3.) The 2nd defendant resisted the suit by filing a written statement that he is not the agent of the 1st defendant and that the 1st defendant is not a legal personality and a non-existing parson and the contract entered into by him cannot also be enforced against him ptesonally as he did not under take the liability personally. it is also urged that ths suit agreement is unconscionable arbitrary and ona sidad in its tenor. The demand and the part payment of unconnected minimum charges of Rs 37, 716-40 pa was on pain of refusal to give connection for the supply of electrical eneregy to the factory and the so called readiness to supply electricity on the part of the plaintiff is not true and hence the claim for unconnected minimum charges is arbitrary and unjust as there is no stipulation in the agreement for unconnected minimum charges. It is also averred that the disconnection of thy energy is arburay and unlewfull and the appropriation of the security doposit of Rs 11,400/- towads the unconnected minimum charges is iilegal and the demand for consumption charges at this rate of Rs. 1,160/- for three months is factually incorrect and unsupportablc taking into account the actual consumption of energy and the minimum charges after disconnection is not tenablo as tha claim is in the nature of damages which cannot be recovered under the terms of agreement or the regulations.