DTEK is in a legal dispute with co-owners of a property over a debt of 108,089 hryvnias - what was the outcome of the decision?

Workers from DTEK discovered an unauthorized connection at the specified address. The co-owners of the house are being asked to pay 108,089 hryvnias for unaccounted electricity, but they are refusing to do so. This information is stated in the decision of the October District Court of Dnipropetrovsk, published on June 26, 2024.

On December 16, 2019, during a technical inspection of the state of electrical metering devices and installations at the address, electricity theft was detected, specifically: "unauthorized connection of current receivers and wiring without the corresponding supply contracts for electricity to the electrical network of JSC 'DTEK Dnipro Electric Networks', violating the metering scheme. The metering device was absent." According to the explanations provided by authorized representatives of DTEK, a two-story residential building is located at this address, and a large family resides there, using electricity for their own household needs without paying for it. On December 20, 2019, a commission meeting was held to review the violation acts, during which it was decided to charge for the unaccounted electricity in the amount of 108,089 hryvnias, and protocol No. 57/19 was drawn up.

On April 29, 2021, the family submitted written explanations to the court, stating that they had entered into a contract with JSC 'DTEK Dnipro Electric Networks' for standard connection to the distribution network, along with attachments. They claimed they were not informed of any outstanding debts when signing the contract. DTEK's reference to their acknowledgment of the debt amount upon signing the protocol only confirms receipt of the protocol, not an acknowledgment of the debt amount itself. On August 16, 2021, they filed a counterclaim, with clarifications from February 8, 2022, against JSC 'DTEK Dnipro Electric Networks', requesting the court to annul the decision formalized in protocol No. 57/19 from the December 20, 2019, commission meeting regarding the review of violation act No. 0034442 from December 16, 2019.

"The plaintiffs did not reside in the residential building at the time the act was drawn up, and they were unaware of the unauthorized connection, as the house was under the balance of the energy network of the Institute of Physical Culture, and contracts for electricity supply with DTEK were never concluded. According to the violation act No. 003442 dated December 16, 2019, the inspection date of the measuring device No. 0503399 was April 15, 2020, meaning the measuring instrument was not calibrated," the case materials state.

What did the court decide?

The court granted the claim. Jointly with the family (three individuals), JSC 'DTEK Dnipro Electric Networks' will recover the cost of unaccounted electricity that arose due to the consumers' violation of the electricity usage rules in the amount of 108,089 hryvnias. The counterclaims against JSC 'DTEK Dnipro Electric Networks' to annul the decision formalized in the protocol were denied.

"The court has sufficiently proven, with appropriate and admissible evidence, the fact of the consumers' violation of the electricity usage rules for the population, which was identified precisely on December 16, 2019. The plaintiffs' denial of not being familiarized with the violation act and not being notified about the commission meeting is not taken into account by the court, as the defendants are co-owners of the property, which was confirmed by appropriate evidence, and therefore are obliged to maintain the property they own unless otherwise established by contract or law. Given these circumstances, the court concluded that the claims were justified and should be satisfied, thus the defendants should jointly compensate the plaintiff for the unaccounted electricity amounting to 108,089 hryvnias. Analyzing the factual circumstances established at the court session in the context of the aforementioned norms of current legislation, the court finds it necessary to deny the satisfaction of the counterclaims due to lack of evidence," the court emphasized.