RSA No.694 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.694 of 2008 Date of Decision:30.09.2008 Randhir Singh ....appellant Versus The Chairman Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Faridabad & anr. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.Manoj Kumar Sood, Advocate for the appellant **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. By way of this appeal, the plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court, whereby appeal filed by the defendants-respondents has been accepted and suit of the plaintiff-appellant has been dismissed. Briefly stated, facts of the present plaintiff's case, as alleged are that the plaintiff is consumer of the electricity and is having A/c No.DSP 1 situated at C-509 in Dabua Colony, NIT Faridabad. The plaintiff was sanctioned load of 19.5 KW and the electricity meter has been installed in his premises. It was a second hand meter installed in the premises of the plaintiff having a reading of 20776. The defendants visited the premises of the plaintiff on 26.04.2000 and the seal of the meter were found OK and checking of the meter was done by the department as well as load of the premises was also checked. The load was within the permissible sanctioned limits but the defendants have added the load of meter No.DSP 60 which is run by M/s R.K.Auto Products despite the objection of the plaintiff and imposed the penalty of Rs.1,62,378/-. The plaintiff also received the notice sent by the defendants illegally and mala fidely to disconnect the electricity supply to the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit was filed. RSA No.694 of 2008 2 The suit was contested by the defendants on the ground that the present suit is pre-mature, unwarranted and the plaintiff failed to deposit at least 50% of the amount. The plaintiff has got no cause of action. The load of the point was 22.380 KW against the sanctioned load of 19.727. Moreover, three seals of the meter were found tampered with whereas fourth seal was found broken. The demand notice was sent rightly by the defendants to the plaintiff and the FIR was also registered against the plaintiff. The notice of demand is legal and valid. The plaintiff was found using excessive load as well as found to have tampered with the seals of the meter. The demand notice of imposition of penalty was sent as per rules and moreover, the defendants are suffering loss and plaintiff has no right to file the suit. Thus, the defendants have prayed for the dismissal of the present suit. Both the parties led their evidence, in support of their respective contentions. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the suit of the plaintiff-appellant was decreed. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants filed an appeal which was accepted by the Lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 12.09.2007. While accepting the appeal, the Lower Appellate Court observed as under: “It was argued that the meter should have been sent to the M & T Laboratory with regard to the tampering of the seals or the broken seal but I am of the considered view that these were checked by competent staff from the vigilance department of the Bijli Board. So, there was no necessity to check the meter in the laboratory. Moreover, no request has been made by the plaintiff to get his meter checked from M & T laboratory. Moreover, one of the phase of the meter was dead and the connected load was more than the sanctioned load. Thus, it can be safely held that in this case the plaintiff was committing theft of electric energy as RSA No.694 of 2008 3 well as the connected load was more than the sanctioned load. The penalty is to be assessed on the basis of the same. The plaintiff cannot be permitted to take benefits of his own wrongs by way of present suit. The report of the department signed by the consumer clearly depicts that there was tampering of seals and even one of the phase was disconnected by the plaintiff. It seems that the meter was tampered with by the plaintiff and later on he re-fixed the seals. Thus, I am of the considered view that demand notice has been rightly made by the defendants from the plaintiff and penalty has been rightly imposed as per the circular of the department. The plaintiff is thus not entitled to any relief claimed by him. Thus, the findings recorded by trial Court on both these issues are reversed and both these issues are decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff. The plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court, through this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the Lower Appellate Court has erred at law while holding that the meter was checked by the vigilance staff and it is not necessary to send the meter to the Laboratory for checking. Since the appellant has disputed the authenticity of metre, it was necessary that the meter be sent for checking as per the instructions of the respondent-department. Thus, the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. However, I find no force in the contention raised by him. It is not disputed that the meter of the plaintiff was checked by vigilance department on 26.04.2000 and appellant was found indulging in theft of electricity by adopting artificial means and thereafter the meter was permanently disconnected and removed. Penalty of Rs.1,62,378/- was raised and the impugned notice dated 26.04.2000 was issued. As per the report Ex.P-1, the connected load of the appellant was found RSA No.694 of 2008 4 at 22.380 KW against the sanctioned load of 19.727 KW. MP seals were checked and found that three seals were tampered with and four seals were broken. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the meter was not sent to the laboratory for checking is without any substance. The reliance of counsel for the appellant on sale circular No.31/98 is also misconceived. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, since the officials of the M & T Organization of the Nigam had not accompanied the authorized officer at the time of checking, no reliance can be placed on the said report, is wrong. In the case in hand, the report Ex.P1 has been proved in accordance with the law from the evidence of Mr.J.P.Sharma, Junior Engineer, DW1, who has fully corroborated the said report that these were checked by competent staff from the vigilance department of the Electricity Board. Moreover, no request has been made by the plaintiff to get his meter checked from M&T laboratory. Moreover, one of the phase of the meter was dead and the connected load was more than the sanctioned load. Thus, it can be safely held that in this case the plaintiff was committing theft or electric energy as well as the connected load was more than the sanctioned load. The penalty is to be assessed on the basis of the same. The plaintiff cannot be permitted to take benefits of his own wrongs. The report of the department signed by the consumer clearly depicts that there was tampering of seals and even one of the phase was disconnected by the plaintiff. Thus, I am of the considered view that demand notice has been rightly made by the defendants from the plaintiff and penalty has been rightly imposed as per the circular of the department. The plaintiff is thus not entitled to any relief claimed by him. Thus, I find no merit in the appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 30.09.2008 neenu