Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Gujarat Electricity Board now Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd, filed a first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2007 passed by the 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surendranagar in Special Civil Suit No.83 of 2000. The appellant had filed a suit against the respondents for recovery of Rs.5,05,644.53 paisa, claiming that the defendants were allotted an electric connection of 6 H.P. load bearing Consumer No.25/02/01048/0, which was permanently disconnected on 06.10.1992. When the connection was disconnected, the premises were closed and the meter and other equipment could not be taken back. On 25.07.1997, the checking squad found the defendants engaged in illegal consumption of electricity. The appellant claimed Rs.1,47,183.75 paisa under ABCD formula and Rs.3,35,772.84 paisa for consumption of units from 06.10.1992 to 25.07.1997, plus Rs.17,121.56 paisa for lighting meter charges. The defendants contested the suit. The trial court partly decreed the suit. The High Court heard the appeal and considered the submissions. The court noted that the ABCD formula is a recognized method for assessing theft but the amount claimed for the entire period from disconnection to checking was excessive. The High Court upheld the trial court's reduction of the amount, finding it proportionate. The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the decree to reduce the amount further. The court did not specifically decide the limitation issue but observed that the claim for the period prior to three years from the suit may be barred.
Headnote
A) Electricity Law - Theft of Electricity - ABCD Formula - The appellant electricity company claimed compensation for illegal consumption of electricity based on ABCD formula assessment - The trial court partly decreed the suit reducing the amount - The High Court held that the ABCD formula is a valid method for assessing theft but the amount must be proportionate to the actual period of consumption - Held that the trial court's reduction was justified as the claim for the entire period from disconnection to checking was excessive (Paras 1-10). B) Limitation - Recovery of Electricity Dues - Period of Limitation - The claim for electricity dues from 1992 to 1997 was partly barred by limitation - The High Court observed that the suit was filed in 2000 and the cause of action arose on 25.07.1997 when theft was detected - Held that the claim for the period prior to three years from the date of suit may be barred, but the trial court did not specifically decide this issue (Paras 3-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in partly decreeing the suit for recovery of electricity dues and whether the ABCD formula assessment for theft of electricity was correctly applied.
Final Decision
The High Court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the trial court's decree to reduce the amount further. The judgment and decree dated 31.12.2007 was modified accordingly.
Law Points
- Electricity theft
- ABCD formula
- compensation for illegal consumption
- limitation period for recovery of electricity dues
- burden of proof on electricity company
