RFA No.499 of 2002 Page 1 of 3 UNREPORTABLE * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA No.499/2002 Date of Decision: March 09, 2010 JAGAT SINGH ..... Appellant Through Mr. Sunil Malhotra, Advocate with Ms. Sonali Malhotra, Advocate versus NORTH DELHI POWER LIMITED ..... Respondent Through Mr. Reetesh Singh, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA 1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the ‘Digest’? No REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The Delhi Vidyut Board (now known as North Delhi Power Limited – hereinafter referred to as the NDPL) had raised a bill against the father of the appellant to the tune of Rs.4,94,689.62P, allegedly, on the ground that he had committed theft of electricity in respect of his registered consumer connection No.7406088 installed in the premises of the appellant at Village Rithala with a sanctioned load of 45 HP. Before the recovery could be effected, the father of the appellant died. Hence, the appellant filed a suit in the Court of an Additional District Judge for declaration that the impugned bill dated February 24, 1999 was illegal, null and void and unenforceable and RFA No.499 of 2002 Page 2 of 3 also prayed for permanent injunction against the NDPL restraining it from disconnecting the aforementioned electric connection. The learned Additional District Judge who dealt with the suit vide her judgment dated May 27, 2002 though has held that the NDPL failed to prove theft of electricity by the registered consumer of connection No.7406088, yet dismissed the suit holding that the appellant who is the son of the registered consumer had no locus-standi to file the suit, as the electricity connection was not in his name. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order of the learned Additional District Judge, the present appeal has been preferred. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has stepped into the shoes of his father and, therefore, the finding of the trial Court that he had no locus to file the suit is erroneous. It is not disputed by the NDPL that the appellant is the son of the registered consumer who has since died. It is also not disputed that the appellant after the death of his father is using the electricity under the same registered consumer number which was allotted to his father and is regularly paying the electricity charges after the death of his father. In this view of the matter, when the NDPL is accepting the electricity charges from the appellant consequent upon the death of his father, it will be travesty of justice to hold that the appellant was not competent to file the suit challenging the demand which was raised against his father. The view that I have taken finds support from a judgment of this Court in the case of Virender Kumar Jain RFA No.499 of 2002 Page 3 of 3 Versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi reported in 145 (2007) Delhi Law Times 685. In the said case also, a similar question arose and the Court held that it was not open to the respondent on the one hand to take electricity charges for the use of electricity and on the other hand, say that there was no privity of contract between the consumer and the respondent and hence, he could not pursue the case. For the foregoing reasons, I hold that the appellant was competent to file the suit and accordingly reverse the finding of the learned Additional District Judge that the suit was not maintainable. As on all other issues, the findings have been returned in favour of the appellant, I restrain the NDPL to give effect to the bill Ex.PW1/2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the appellant is misusing the electricity connection, in as much as it is being used for a purpose other than the one for which it was sanctioned and as such, the counsel prays that the respondent be granted liberty to raise a bill against the appellant for misuse of the electricity. This was not an issue before the learned Additional District Judge, hence it cannot be raised in appeal before me. However, the respondent shall be at liberty to move in accordance with law against the appellant for any alleged misuse of electricity. The appeal is disposed of. REKHA SHARMA, J. MARCH 09, 2010 ka