R.S.A. No.4247 of 2005 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
R.S.A. No.4247 of 2005
Date of Decision:22.10.2008
Sanjiv Kumar
.....Appellant
Vs.
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Fatehabad
and another
.....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL
Present:- Mr. Madan Sandhu, Advocate for Mr. Parveen Kumar,
Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Geeta Singhwal, Advocate for the respondents.
****
HARBANS LAL, J.
This second appeal is directed against the judgment/ decree
dated 15.6.2005 passed by the Court of learned District Judge Fatehabad
whereby he dismissed the appeal preferred against the judgment/ decree
dated 4.3.2005 rendered by the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Fatehabad whereby he dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-
Sanjiv Kumar with costs.
The facts which led to the filing of the suit are that Sanjiv
Kumar, plaintiff is running a workshop at Ratia in which electric meter
No.NH-41-0016 lay installed. He had been paying the bill regarding this
meter regularly and no amount was outstanding against him. On 8.8.2002,
he received notice Ex.P.1 directing him to deposit a sum of RS.2,54,316/-
within 48 hours which is null and void for the reason that the defendants did
not take into consideration the previous bills for the last six months. The
checking was made at about 2:30 a.m., but not in his presence at the time
R.S.A. No.4247 of 2005 -2-
when no work was being done in the workshop. The time of 48 hours given
to him is less than the prescriptive period. He was not afforded any
opportunity of being heard before issuing the impugned notice. This
penalty has been imposed on surmises. On 7.8.2002, a van bearing
registration No.RJ-1G-0031 had visited the workshop to unload material.
When the same was in the process of unloading, it struck against the wire,
as a result of which, the wire got snapped and it also hit a pole which was
also damaged, thus the wire cut was not made by him in order to extract
electric energy illegally rather the same got cut accidentally. On these
allegations, the suit has been filed for declaration to the effect that the
above-mentioned notice is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff
with consequential relief of permanent injunction directing the defendants
to restore the electric connection. In their joint written statement, the
defendants have admitted that the above-mentioned meter has been installed
in the workshop owned by the plaintiff. As alleged, on the night intervening
7/8.8.2002, the premises of the plaintiff were checked by Mr. R.N. Suman,
ADV. Hisar along with Hazari Lal, learned JE and Amar Singh, Inspector of
Vigilance Staff. In the course of checking, a cut was detected in the
incoming cable near the meter, which was a clear-cut case of theft as per
Sales Circular No.D-9/2002. As such, the meter connection was
disconnected at the spot and the meter was removed. The checking report
was prepared at the spot. The load was found 18.61 KW. The checking
report was signed by the brother of the plaintiff only. The penalty was
imposed keeping in view the load of 18.61 KW and the consumption for six
months. The penalty has been assessed as per rules and no notice was
required to be given to the plaintiff at the time of checking the premises.
R.S.A. No.4247 of 2005 -3-
The story put forth by the plaintiff is absolutely wrong and is concocted
one. The impugned notice is perfectly valid and binding upon the plaintiff.
He is disentitled to the restoration of the electricity supply till the payment
of the entire arrears is made. Lastly, it has been prayed that the suit may be
dismissed. The following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the notice no.1597 dated 8.8.02 issued by the
defendant No.2 relating to the plaintiff electricity
account No.NH 41-0016 relating to his workshop
situated at Fatehabad Road, Ratia, Distt. Fatehabad, vide
which an amount of Rs.254613/- has been demanded by
defendants from the plaintiff is wrong, illegal, arbitrary,
null and void and is, thus liable to be set aside? OPP
2. In case, issue No.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff,
then whether the plaintiff is also entitled to injunction as
prayed for? OPP
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?
OPD
4. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by
principle of resjudicata? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff has not approached the court with
clean hands? OPD
6. Relief.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining
the evidence on record, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Fatehabad dismissed the suit as noted supra. Feeling aggrieved therewith,
the plaintiff went up in appeal, which was also dismissed by the Court of
R.S.A. No.4247 of 2005 -4-
learned District Judge, Fatehabad as indicated earlier. Being undaunted and
dissatisfied therewith, he has preferred this appeal.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides
perusing the findings returned by both the Courts below with due care and
circumspection.
Mr. Madan Sandhu, Advocate appearing on behalf of the
appellant urged with great eloquence that at the time of checking of the
meter, the wire cut was brought to the notice of the Board, but no action was
taken. He further puts that the complaints Ex.P.4, Ex.P.5 pertaining to the
incident and the photograph Ex.P.6 have been wrongly discarded by both
the Courts below. He further agitated at the bar that as a matter of fact, the
wire got cut accidentally in consequence of striking of the vehicle No.RJ-
IG-0031 against the pole, but this fact has not been appreciated in a desired
manner.
To controvert these submissions, Ms. Geeta Singhwal,
Advocate representing the respondent- defendants argued that a meticulous
perusal of the findings returned by both the Courts below would reveal that
the same have been recorded in a right perspective and thus call for no
interference.
I have well considered the rival contentions. The main-stay of
the appellant is Ex.P.4. The photostat copy of which has been shown at the
bar. A glance through its contents would reveal that it is absolutely silent
about the author of the complaint. As per the same, the fuse of Meera
industry has got off. On telephone Fatehabad road consumer disclosed that
some truck bearing No.RJ-IG-0031 had struck against the pole and as its
consequence, the pole got bent in a slantic manner. As per averments in the
R.S.A. No.4247 of 2005 -5-
complaint when vehicle No.RJ-IG-0031 belonging to the plaintiff dashed
against the pole, the wire got snapped, though as per the allegations in
Ex.P.4, the alleged vehicle belong to some other person. The possibility of
version in Ex.P4 having been coined cannot be ruled out, so as to escape
liability. On perusing the findings recorded by both the Courts below with
sedulous care, it transpires that the same in no manner can be faulted with.
Consequently, these are not liable to be disturbed. To add further to it, no
substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court arises. As
such, this appeal is dismissed.
October 22, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No