Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company Limited vs Vasavadatta Cement

N. Ananda, J.—In this appeal, the parties have raised several contentions. On careful consideration of documentary evidence, in particular, letter of correspondence between appellants and the respondent, the trial court has held that excess deposit held by the appellants after the surrender of 8000 KVA by the respondent was adjusted in the following manner:

1) Rs. 1,06,21,600/- adjusted on 10.05.2000

2) Rs. 54,69,292/- adjusted on 01.04.2001

3) Rs. 32,12,728/- adjusted on 01.05.2001

4) Rs. 8,56,380/- adjusted on 01.06.2001

The respondent (plaintiff) had claimed that appellants having retained deposit amount after the additional power of 8000 KVA was surrendered are liable to pay interest of Rs. 99,26,238/-. The respondent has claimed that interest is payable at the rate of 24% per annum.

In this appeal the appellants have called into question the interest awarded at the rate of 24% per annum on the deposit amount.

The trial court had directed the appellants to return the deposit amount with interest at the rate of 24% from the date on which the deposit became due for payment. The learned Trial Judge having regard to the admission made by DW-1 (Executive Engineer of GESCOM) has held that the appellants are bound to return the deposit amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum which in fact is the rate of interest charged by the appellants on its consumers on delayed payment of electricity consumption charges. The learned Trial Judge has answered issue No. 3 accordingly.

We have heard the learned counsel for parties.

The learned counsel for appellants has referred to Regulation 31.05 (e) of the Supply Regulations to contend that the appellants are not liable to pay interest exceeding 10% per annum. The relevant regulation 31.05(e) reads thus:

"Simple interest at 10% per annum is payable to the consumer on all the securities of Rs. 100/- and above."

Before the trial court the appellants have not produced any documentary evidence to show that respondent had agreed to receive the deposit amount with interest at the rate of 10%. Even if there is regulation, unless it becomes the part of contract between the parties the said regulation cannot be enforced. The simple interest in terms of regulation 31.05 (e) of the Supply Regulations refers to interest payable on the security deposit however, it does not refer to the rate of interest payable on security deposit after it becomes overdue.

We find justification in the finding recorded by learned Trial Judge. We also deem it appropriate to state that the reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Judge is based upon the evidence of DW-1. The appellants cannot have double standards in the matter of rate of interest. The appellants '' cannot be permitted to contend that it is not liable to pay interest at the rate of 24% on the amount deposited by the consumers for the delayed payment of the deposit amount.

In the discussion made supra, we have held that the Board cannot have double standard in the matter of rate of interest. The Board cannot charge interest at the rate of 24% per annum on consumers when the consumption charges become overdue. At the same time, the board cannot contend that it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the deposits of the consumers when the deposits become overdue for payment. The learned Trial Judge has rightly granted interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the deposit amount and the same does not call for interference. We do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed.