RSA No.3360 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3360 of 2010 Date of Decision: 24.08.2010 Pyare Lal Chauhan .....Appellant Versus The A.E.E. (Op) Model Town, Sub-Division and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Appellant in person. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Pyare Lal Chauhan-plaintiff, who was practicing Advocate and later on became Member of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hissar which post he still occupies, has filed the instant second appeal, having lost in both the Courts below. Plaintiff-appellant filed suit challenging electricity bill issued by the defendants to the plaintiff in June, 2007 for Rs.3,455/- only. The plaintiff is domestic consumer of electricity from the defendants. Electricity meter of the plaintiff became dead in November, 2006 and was removed by the defendants by making temporary arrangement for supply of electricity. Plaintiff alleged that in April 2007, a defective meter was installed in the premises of the plaintiff. The said meter was running very fast. Defendants issued bill of Rs.3455/- to the plaintiff in June, 2007. The said bill is not payable by the plaintiff as the meter was defective. The defendants admitted that earlier meter installed in the RSA No.3360 of 2010 -2- premises of the plaintiff become dead in the month of November, 2006 and the same was changed on 05.04.2007. The plaintiff was charged 240 units in all for the period of five months from November, 2006 to March, 2007 (during the period when the meter remained dead) and the plaintiff consumed 574 units after the new meter was installed and accordingly bill of Rs.3455/- for total consumption of 814 units was rightly issued to the plaintiff. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hissar vide judgment and decree dated 04.04.2009 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Hissar vide judgment and decree dated 22.05.2010. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard the appellant in person and perused the case file. The appellant vehemently contended that test report of the new meter installed in the premises of the plaintiff in April 2007 was available with the defendants, but they have withheld the same and, therefore, adverse presumption arises against the defendants under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. I have carefully considered the contention, but find no merit therein. The plaintiff has failed to prove that the meter installed in his premises in April, 2007 was defective or was running fast. The plaintiff could get the said meter tested by making application to the defendants, who could have installed parallel meter to check the consumption of the meter installed in April, 2007. However, this procedure was not followed by the plaintiff. Even otherwise, consumption of 574 units only after RSA No.3360 of 2010 -3- installation of new meter would by itself not depict that the meter was defective or was running fast. There is concurrent finding of fact by both the Courts below against the plaintiff-appellant. The said finding is based on appreciation of evidence and is not shown to be perverse or illegal. Consequently, the said finding does not warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. 24.08.2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE