IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 RSA.No. 357 of 2009(A) ---------------------- AS.14/2005 of SUB COURT, QUILANDY OS.142/1999 of MUNI-MAGI.COURT, PERAMBARA .................... APPELLANT/APPELANT/PLAINTIFF ---------------------------------------------------- JAMES VAYALATH, S/O.CHACKO, PENSIONER, AGED 58 YEARS, PERAMBRA VILLAGE, PERAMBRA DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHARAM.P RESPONDENT: RESPONENT/ DEFENDANT --------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, VIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB, PERAMBRA, P.O.PERAMBRA. 3. ASST.ENGINEER, KSEB, PERAMBRA, P.O.PERAMBRA. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A. 991 OF 2009 IN R.S.A NO. 357 OF 2009 DISMISSED 12.6.2009 SD/-HARUN-UL-RASHID,JUDGE HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ---------------------------------------- R.S.A.No.357 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in A.S. 14/2005 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court Koyilandy, which arises from the judgment and decree on the file of the Munsiff-Magistrate's Court, Perambra. The suit was filed for declaration and mandatory injunction directing the defendants to reconnect the electric supply. The plaintiff in the said suit is the appellant herein. The parties hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and defendants. During the pendency of the said suit the electric supply has been restored and hence the prayer for mandatory injunction has become infructuous. 2. The plaintiff is provided with electricity connection by the defendants as consumer No.214 KVL to his house and as consumer No. 437 to his shop. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 24.9.1999 some of the employees of the Electricity Board came to his house and shop building and had done some mischief in the electricity meters installed in the premises and the Board without any basis alleged that he has committed theft of electricity. The plaintiff also contended that the Electricity Board issued Ext.A3 notice demanding him to pay a sum of Rs. 12,338/- as electricity charges for consumer No. 437 as evidenced by Ext.A4 and a R.S.A. No. 357 of 2009 -2- sum of Rs. 5257/- as electricity charges for consumer No. 214 as evidenced by Ext. A6. Due to non-payment of the amount mentioned in Ext.A4 and Ext.A6 bills the Electricity Board disconnected the electric supply to the house and shop of the plaintiff. The main challenge in the suit is against Ext.A4 and A6 bills issued by the Electricity Board. The trial court decreed the suit setting aside Ext.A4 and A6 invoices and granting the defendants the liberty to issue fresh invoices for the relevant period in accordance with the Indian Electricity Act and Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy within a period of 3 months from the date of decree. The trial court also ordered that in the event of fresh bills were issued by the defendants, the plaintiff shall pay the same within a period of 30 days that failing which the defendants were entitled to take appropriate action. The said decree and judgment of the trial court were confirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court. Hence this second appeal. 3. The defendants entered appearance and contended that on 24.9.1999, they found that the incoming wire was connected with the outgoing end of the meter and therefore the meter was not registering the reading. It is the further case of the defendants that the plaintiff has tampered with the meter in order to commit theft of electrical energy . 4. The pleadings of the plaintiff in the plaint and the oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 and Exts.A10 to A32 adduced in support of his case were rejected by the trial court finding that those evidence were most unbelievable. After analysing the evidence on record the trial court concluded that there was theft or dishonest abstraction of electricity by the R.S.A. No. 357 of 2009 -3- plaintiff . At the same time the trial court opined that the method ought to have been adopted was to find out the average consumption for the succeeding 3 months and to issue a bill in accordance with the provisions of the conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy and the issuance of Ext.A4 and A6 bills on the basis of the connected load was not sustainable. In such circumstance the trial court cancelled Ext. A4 and A6 invoices with liberty to the Electricity Board to issue fresh bills calculated on the basis of the average consumption as per clause 43 of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, at 3 tames of relevant tariff. In the above said circumstance a decree was passed reserving the right of the Electricity Board to reassess the electrical energy consumed by the plaintiff as mentioned above and issue fresh bills for the relevant period. The said decree and judgment were confirmed by the lower appellate court. Since the findings arrived at by the courts below are purely based on facts and evidence, I find no reason to take a different view. I am also of the view that the findings arrived at by the courts below are legal and valid. The grounds raised in this Second Appeal are not tenable to invoke the jurisdiction conferred under Section 100 of the C.P.C. No questions of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal This appeal fails and accordingly dismissed. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) es HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. -------------------------- R.S.A. No. 357 of 2009 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 12th June, 2009