R.S.A No. 1261 of 2010 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 1261 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : March 23, 2010 Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others, ...... Appellant (s) v. M/S Krishna Ice Factory, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Praveen Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent challenging the recovery of Rs.14,74,436/- as penalty from him. The admitted facts are that on a raid having been conducted at the premises of the respondent it was found that there was a gap between the glass of the meter and the actual meter. Consequently, two proceedings were initiated against the respondent viz a criminal case for theft of energy; and a notice of recovery of Rs.14,74,436/- on account of theft of energy. Ultimately, it was found that the gap between the meter and its glass was R.S.A No. 1261 of 2010 (O&M) ::2:: inherent manufacturing defect and there was no case of theft of energy. It was further found that the meter was running slow by 7.89 percent and for that slow running of the meter, a sum of Rs.13,246/- was recoverable from the respondent against the original penalty. However, even after the respondent offered to pay the revised amount of Rs.13,246/-, the appellants continued to demand the original penalty. It is also not disputed that even in the criminal case, which was lodged against the respondent, the respondent was acquitted. Both the Courts below holding that once theft of energy was actually dis-proved decreed the suit of the respondent for declaration that the demand of Rs. 14,74,436/- was illegal. The following questions of law have been proposed :- “ i) Whether the judgments and decrees passed by the learned trial Court as well as passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonipat are based upon erroneous and mis-appreciation of facts and law ? ii) Whether the observations of the learned District Consumer Forum are matter of record and ought to have been relied upon by the learned Courts below ? iii) Whether the findings of the learned Courts below are perverse to the effect that the entire penalty amount would not mean the original penalty amount of Rs.14,74,436/- ? iv) Whether the respondent-plaintiff is liable to pay the aforesaid original penalty amount as raised by the appellants ?” Counsel for the appellants has argued that before the District R.S.A No. 1261 of 2010 (O&M) ::3:: Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum the respondent had stated that he was ready to pay the entire amount of penalty imposed. He has further argued that this amount could only mean the original demand of Rs.14,74,436/-. He has further stated that both the Courts below have erred in coming to the conclusion that this offer was made with respect to the revised amount of Rs.13,246/-. In my opinion, the arguments of counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted. Once it was established that there was no theft of energy by the respondent and on the basis of the report of the appellants itself, it was worked out that there was only slow running of meter and for that the amount due from the respondent was Rs.13,246/-, it cannot be deduced that the offer made by the respondent was in relation to the original penalty. In any case, even if a wrong admission was made by the respondent, it was entitled to show and prove that the admission was not as per the record. As per the record, it is not disputed that there was no theft of energy. Thus, the demand of penalty on the basis of theft cannot be upheld. Consequently, holding the questions proposed against the appellants, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) March 23, 2010. JUDGE `kk' R.S.A No. 1261 of 2010 (O&M) ::4::