http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: ORISSA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ORISSA TILES LIMITED

DATE OF JUDGMENT31/03/1993

BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) VENKATACHALA N. (J)

CITATION:  1993 SCR  (2) 860        1993 SCC  Supl.  (3) 481  JT 1993 (3)   613        1993 SCALE  (2)324

ACT: Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Agreement between Electricity Board and  Consumer--Provision for  minimum  charges--Default  in  payment  of  electricity charges--Disconnection  of supply--Liability of consumer  to pay  minimum  charges  for  period  subsequent  to  date  of disconnection of supply--Consumer held liable to pay minimum charges for period subsequent to disconnection.

HEADNOTE: The  respondent-industry entered into an agreement with  the appellant-Board  for  supply of electricity  on  5th  March, 1965.   Under the agreement, which was valid for five  years i.e.  upto  5th  March 1970, consumer  was  obliged  to  pay certain  minimum  charges in any event.   However,  on  30th April,   1968  supply  of  electricity  to  respondent   was disconnected for non-payment of electricity charges.   Since the  respondent also failed to pay the minimum  charges  for the  period  subsequent to the date  of  disconnection,  the Electricity Board riled a suit for the amount due on account of the electricity consumed upto April 30, 1968 and for  the minimum  charges  from May 1, 1968 to March  5,  1970.   The Trial Court decreed the suit. The  respondent  preferred an appeal before the  High  Court which sustained the Trial Court’s decree only for the period upto the date of disconnection but disallowed the claim  for the  period subsequent to the date of disconnection  on  the ground that since the respondent did not avail of any energy whatsoever during the period subsequent to the disconnection it  was  not  liable to pay the  minimum  charges  for  that person. In  appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf  of  the Electricity Board that in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna and Ors. v. M/s Creen Rubber Industries and Ors., [1990] 1 S.C.C. 731 the respondent was liable to pay the minimum charges for the period subsequent to disconnection. 861 Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the  High Court, this Court, HELD: Clause (13) of the agreement between the parties  does oblige the consumer to pay a certain minimum charges in  any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

event.   The  judgment  and decree of  the  Trial  Court  is restored. [862 E, 863 D] Bihar  State  Electricity Board, Patna & Ors. v.  M/s  Green Rubber Industries and Ors., [1990] 1 S.C.C. 731, relied on.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1496 of 1993. From  the Judgment and Order dated 20.2.1985 of  the  Orissa High Court in First Appeal No.139 of 1974 Raj Kumar Mehta for the Appellant. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B.P.  JEEVAN REDDY, J. Heard the counsel for the  appellant. None  appears  for  the  respondent  though  served.   Leave granted. This  appeal  by  the  Orissa  State  Electricity  Board  is preferred  against  the judgment of the  Orissa  High  Court allowing partly an appeal preferred .by the respondent.  The dispute   pertains   to  the  liability  of   the   consumer (respondent  in  this  appeal) to pay  the  minimum  charges during the period subsequent to the date of disconnection of supply  of energy to him for the non-payment of  electricity dues. The respondent is an industry.  It entered into an agreement with  the  appellant for supply of electricity on  March  5, 1965.   The agreement was valid for a period of five  years. He started availing of the energy with effect from July  31, 1965.  The supply of his industry was disconnected on  April 30, 1968 for non-payment of electricity charges.  Since  the consumer  also  failed to pay the minimum  charges  for  the period  subsequent to the date of disconnection,  the  Board filed  a  suit  for  the  amount  due  on  account  of   the electricity  consumed  between April 1, 1968 and  April  30, 1968 and for the minimum charges for the period May 1,  1968 to  March 5, 1970. (It may be remembered that the  agreement between  parties was valid upto March 5, 1970).   The  Trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for along with interest 862 of 6% per annum on the amount decreed from the date of  suit till the date of decree and also future interest at the same rate  till  full satisfaction.  On appeal,  the  High  Court sustained the decree of the Trial Court only for the  period upto  the  date  of  disconnection  (April  30,  1968)   but disallowed  the claim for the period subsequent to the  date of  disconnection.  The reasoning of the High Court is  that inasmuch as the supply was disconnected and the  respondent- consumer  did not avail of any energy whatsoever during  the period subsequent to the disconnection, it is not liable  to pay the minimum charges. In  this appeal, it is contended by the learned counsel  for the appellant that the question arising herein is  concluded in  favour  of the Board by the decision of  this  Court  in Bihar  State Electricity Board, Patna and Ors. v. M/s  Green Rubber  Industries  and  Ors., [1990] 1 S.C.C.  731.   On  a perusal of the judgment, we find that  was also a case where the  claim inter alia pertained to the period subsequent  to the date of disconnection till the expiry of the  agreement. In that case too, minimum charges were claimed by the  Board even  for  the  period  during  which  the  supply  remained disconnected and no energy whatsoever was availed of by  the consumer.   We  also find that clause (4) of  the  agreement considered’ in the said decision and clauses (6) and (13) of the  agreement  concerned  herein  are  substantially  same. Clause (13) of the agreement between the parties hereto does

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

oblige the consumer to pay a certain minimum charges in  any event.  The clause reads as follows:               "Clause 13.               The consumer shall (subject to the  provisions               hereinafter contained) pay to the Engineer for               the   power  demand  and   electrical   energy               supplied under this Agreement, the charges  to               be   ascertained  as  mentioned   below   viz.               (Government   resolution  on  tariff   to   be               inserted here)               LARGE INDUSTRIES: For demand of 125 K.V.A. and               above for supply at 11 K.V. at               (i)   Rs.5.50 paise per K.V.A. per month plus               (ii)  Rs.0.08  paise  per  K.W.H.  per   month               subject to an overall maximum rate of  Rs.0.09               paise per K.W.H. and 863               without prejudice to payment of minimum charge               of  75 per cent of the contract demand at  the               above  rate  of Rs.5.50 paise per  K.V.A.  per               month and subject further to absolute  minimum               payment on 125 K.V.A. in the first part of the               tariff.               For  less  than 250 K.V.A the  demand  may  be               metered in K.W. and charged for at Rs.6.00 per               K.W.  per  month.   Besides  the  charges  for               K.W.H.  consumed at the rate specified  above.               For supply at M.T. less than 11 K.V.A and M.T.               less  that 11 K.V.A. and M.T. the  above  rate               will be increased by 10%." The  reasons for such a stipulation and  its  justifiability are duly and fully explained by this Court in the  aforesaid decision.  It is not necessary for us to reiterate the same. The appeal is accordingly allowed.  The Judgment of the High Court  is set aside.  The judgment and decree of  the  Trial Court is restored.  No costs. T.N.A.                                  Appeal allowed. 864