On 16-3-1985 the petitioner filed a suit against the respondents. In the plaint it was stated that the petitioner applied for electricity connection for his Ice Factory and a meter was installed and he was being charged under Tariff B-I and that he has been regularly paying his bills; that the respondents have added a sum of Rs,25,912.09 towards the seasonal charges under Tariff-F; that the respondents have refused to correct the bill despite several applications. In their written statement the respondents took the plea that electricity being supplied to the petitioner is liable to be charged under Tariff-F. Issues were framed, relevant being Issue No, 3-A which is reproduced here:--- 3-A. Whether the connection of the disputed meter is under Tariff B-I, if so, to what effect?
Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 11-10-1989. A first appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Jhelum on 13-2-1991.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that evidence on record has been misread by the learned Courts below while passing the impugned judgments and decrees. According to the learned counsel it stands established on record that the connection was issued and the supply was chargeable under Tariff B-I and in fact this is how the petitioner was being charged. No one has turned up for the respondents despite the fact that they have been served and otherwise a notice has been issued to them for today. They are accordingly proceeded against ex parte.
3. I have gone through the copies of the record appended with this civil revision. I have also examined the impugned judgments. I find that the learned trial Court has concluded that the petitioner applied for a seasonal industrial connection and that bills Exh. P.1 to P.3 were sent according to industrial charges. The learned Additional District Judge in his turn has been impressed by an application Exh. D.2 which according to him was made for a seasonal connection.
I do find that document Exh. D.2 does give the impression that the application was filed for a seasonal industrial connection but the other entire evidence on record definitely gives the impression that the parties intended for permanent connection on the basis of Tariff B-I and throughout the petitioner was charged on the basis of the said Tariff. Now the two Tariffs i,e, B-I and F have distinct features. Under Tariff B-I, the consumer is charged the fuel surcharge and even if no electricity is used, he is made to pay the minimum charges. Tariff-F FExh. D.1) provides for disconnection of a season load at the end of the season and in case the consumer does not apply for re-connection the equipments of the supplier are removed. There is no concept of payment of minumum charges under Tariff-F. Now I find that Faizuddin, D.W.1 has admitted without any demur that the load was never disconnected and that the petitioner was being charged minumum charges when no electricity was consumed. This being so, then notwithstanding the fact that the application was filed for seasonal connection it is but obvious that a permanent connection was given and the petitioner was being charged accordingly., There is yet another aspect of the case i,e, Tariff-F would be beneficial to the consumer in such like situation as the same would absolve him of the payment of minumum charges and also fuel surcharge when the electricity remains disconnected. I, therefore, do agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that evidence on record has been grossly misread by the learned Courts below while passing the impugned judgments and decrees. The civil revision is accordingly allowed. Both the judgments and decrees are set aside and the suit of the petitioner is decreed as prayed for. No orders as to costs.