In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... R.S.A. No.2953 of 2002 (O&M) ..... Date of decision:18.8.2011 Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and another .....Appellants v. Harbans Lal .....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ...... Present: Mrs. Geeta Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. H.S. Saggu, Advocate for the respondents. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. This regular second appeal has been filed by Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and another (appellants-defendants) against the judgment and decree dated 15.2.2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur whereby the appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 8.5.2000 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sunam has been allowed. As per facts of this case, connection of the consumer R.S.A. No.2953 of 2002 (O&M) [2] (respondent herein) was checked by Senior Executive Engineer, Flying Squad, Lehragaga on 14.12.1998 and it was recommended that the electricity meter of respondent was running slow by 22.30%. On the basis of checking report dated 14.12.1998, the account of respondent was overhauled vide circular No.14/96 and he was found liable to pay `99,329/-. Notice No.1822 dated 16.12.1998 in this regard was issued to the consumer. Consumer i.e. present respondent filed Civil Suit No.13 dated 19.1.1999 in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sunam which was dismissed on 8.5.2000. Against this order, the respondent filed a Civil Appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Sangrur which was allowed on 15.2.2002 and the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court were set aside and the suit of the respondent-plaintiff was decreed with costs. The amount of `99,329/- which was already deposited by the respondent was directed to be adjusted against the future electricity bills of A/c No.MS-29. However, the appellant-Board (now PSPCL) was given liberty to refer the dispute to Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act and then to proceed against the consumer as per statutory provisions and instructions. Against this appeal, this regular second appeal had been filed in the High Court which was dismissed vide order dated 15.1.2007 in views of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, 2004 (1) RCR (Civil), 816. Simultaneously, the Board filed SLP in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a connected case i.e. in R.S.A. No.103 of 2001 along with this RSA, which was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 8.12.2010 and the following order was passed:- R.S.A. No.2953 of 2002 (O&M) [3] “Accordingly, we permit the respondent to make a representation to the Committee in respect of its grievances and we request the Committee to decide the same preferably within two months from the date of filing of the same. The representation must be made within three weeks from today. Till disposal of the said representation, we request the High Court not to dispose off the second appeal pending before it.” In pursuance to this order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in the pending petition by the High Court, the consumer in the connected case i.e. RSA No.103 of 2001 and in this case approached the Zonal Level Grievances Redressal Committee (hereinafter referred to as `the Committee') of the respondent-Board (now PSPCL). Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that in pursuance of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the consumer has made a representation before the Committee. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the parties brought to my notice that the Committee has decided the representation of the consumer and reduced the amount of `99,329/- to `26,000/- and the dispute between the parties has been settled. I have heard Mrs. Geeta Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. H.S. Saggu, learned counsel for the respondent. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of both the sides. It will be relevant to mention here that neither there was any tampering of the meter by the respondent/consumer nor any effort has been made to steal the electric energy. There is nothing on file to show if any R.S.A. No.2953 of 2002 (O&M) [4] attempt has been made by the consumer to defraud the appellants. From the facts of the case, it is apparent that the meter installed by the appellants on inspection was found to be slow by 22.30% as a result of which the account of the respondent has been overhauled and an amount of `99,329/- has been found outstanding against the respondent. The appellants in its turn seem to have taken the decision to recover the above amount after rectification of the account of the consumer. From the perusal of the facts and circumstances, no fault can be found with the respondent as far as slowness of the meter is concerned. I am of considered opinion that since the Committee has already reduced the demand from `99,329/- to `26,000/- and settled the dispute between parties, the respondent shall deposit the bill amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of demand notice. With these observations, this regular second appeal stands disposed of. August 18, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*