R.S.A. No. 3821 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3821 of 2004 Date of Decision: 7.01.2009 Smt. Veeran Wali ...Appellant. Versus Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and another ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. Being unsuccessful before the courts below, the plaintiff has approached this Court by way of present regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31.5.2004 passed by the first appellate court affirming that of the trial court dated 9.11.2002 whereby the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction, was dismissed. Put succinctly, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff Smt. Veeran Wali was the consumer of the defendants-Bijli Vitran Nigam having electric meter bearing No. MS-58 and had been making payment of the electricity consumption charges regularly. It was pleaded that she received a bill on 25.10.1999 which was payable on 27/28.10.1999 in which an amount of Rs.69,341/- was added as sundry R.S.A. No. 3821 of 2004 -2- charges whereas the actual consumption charges were Rs.39,999/-. On receiving the said bill, the son of the plaintiff approached defendant No.2, who failed to disclose as to why the said amount of sundry charges was added in the bill. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff challenged the said bill being illegal, null and void and not binding on her as neither any notice was served on her before claiming the said amount nor was she given any opportunity of being heard. When the request of the plaintiff for depositing the actual consumption charges was not accepted by the defendants and a threat of dis-connection of her electric connection was extended, she filed a suit for declaration Upon notice, the defendants filed a joint written statement raising various preliminary objections. It was pleaded that the meter account No.FC-21 618 NDS was removed from the premises of the plaintiff on 22.4.1999 along with other meter as the plaintiff had got clubbed her entire load through one connection bearing No. MS 58 with a final reading of 21424 and the same was sent to the consumer for billing against previous reading of 2988 but inadvertently, the computer ignored the reading as such the bill was sent on average basis by taking 1230 units and, thus, there was a difference of 17206 units. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was charged for the same and she moved an application with a notice of assessment on which an amount of Rs.69,341/- was assessed as amount of compensation to be paid by her. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff was issued a show cause notice for charging the aforesaid amount to which she had also filed reply but had not waited for the decision and filed the suit. They claimed that the notice demanding the aforesaid amount of Rs.69,341/- R.S.A. No. 3821 of 2004 -3- was legal and valid and they had every right to recover the said amount from the plaintiff. The other averments made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. In the replication, the plaintiff took a plea that meter account No. FC-21-618 was not in her name rather it was in the name of one Raja Bajaj and the said connection had no concern with the electric connection No. MS-58. She further pleaded that she was not liable to pay the aforesaid amount. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed various issues and on appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence led by the parties held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the sundry charges of Rs.69,341/- were not chargeable from her and the defendants had no right to disconnect her electric connection for non-payment of the said amount. It was further held that the suit was not maintainable in view of Section 24 (1) of the Indian Electricity Act as the plaintiff had not filed any appeal against the demand notice, Ex.D1. Accordingly, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 9.11.2002 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff took the matter in appeal and the lower appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 31.5.2004 affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgments with his assistance. No illegality or perversity could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in the findings recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court. Further, no misreading or R.S.A. No. 3821 of 2004 -4- misappreciation of the evidence available on record has been shown by the learned counsel for the appellant warranting interference by this court in the regular second appeal. The lower appellate court had recorded a finding of fact that when the meter bearing account No.FC- 618 was installed in the premises in which the meter account No.MS-58 was existing and the load of the aforesaid meter had been clubbed with the meter account No. MS-58, there was nothing wrong to charge the units which were inadvertently left to be charged in the earlier bill. Moreover, the plaintiff had not disputed or denied that the aforesaid 17206 units for which she had been charged were not consumed by her. Further, the courts below had concurrently recorded a finding that the suit was premature as she had not availed appropriate remedy of appeal available under the statute. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration of this Court. In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. January 7, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE