Regular Second Appeal No.847 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-26.7.2010 Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and another ...Appellants Versus M/s Ram Ice Factory ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Praveen Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The civil suit filed by M/s Ram Ice Factory respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiff”) against the appellant-defendants Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and another (hereinafter to be referred as “DHBVNL”) was decreed by the trial Court, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 7.1.2008. The appeal filed by the DHBVNL and its officers was dismissed as well, by Ist Appellate Court, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 19.9.2009. 2. The appellant-defendants still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below and filed the present appeal. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant-defendants, having gone through the record with his valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the regular second appeal. 4. However, the main argument of the learned counsel for appellant- defendants that since the capacitor of the plaintiff was not found in working condition, so, it (plaintiff) was required to pay capacitor charges, which were included in the bills (Ex.P2 and Ex.P4), is not tenable. Regular Second Appeal No.847 of 2010 2 5. As is evident from the record, the appellant-defendants have not claimed that the plaintiff has, in any way, committed the theft of electric energy but the capacitor charges were added in its bills. The trial court observed that the capacitor charges cannot be added to the bills of the plaintiff as capacitor was found in working condition, vide checking report dated 15.4.2002 (mark-B). Ist appellate Court has also noticed as under:- “The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants are meritless. The plea raised by the plaintiff/respondent in his plaint that the defendants cannot charge capacitor charges beyond the period from 16.4.2002 to 23.7.2002 finds authentication from the documents of the defendants. Mark B is the checking report dated 15.4.2002 of the defendants Nigam wherein it has been mentioned that LT capacitor was checked and the same was found within permissible limits. The checking was made on 10.4.2002 and the capacitor was found in working condition. The fault in capacitor installed with the meter equipment was found in the report dated 23.7.2002. As per instructions Ex.D2 it was obligatory on the part of industrial consumer to maintain a minimum power factor of 85% and instructions were issued to make it mandatory to install LT capacitor on the motor terminals so as to maintain prescribed limit of 85% power factor. The learned lower court has thus committed no illegality in holding that the defendants at the most would have charged capacitor charges after 16.4.2002 to 23.7.2002 and has rightly declared bill No.533944 Ex.P2 and subsequent bill of December 2005 Ex.P4 illegal, arbitrary, malafide, against the factual position, against the sales circular and rules of the Nigam and were set aside, setting the defendants at liberty to issue fresh bill to the plaintiff to charge capacitor charges from 16.4.2002 to 23.7.2002. Since the plaintiff had deposited the entire amount, the defendants were directed to adjust the amount in future bill. There is nothing on record which could show that Regular Second Appeal No.847 of 2010 3 plaintiff/respondent had suppressed the material facts from the Court and that he should be estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct. The plaintiff has also got every cause of action and locus standi to file the suit. Hence the issues No.3 to 5 were rightly decided against the defendants. Accordingly, the findings of the learned lower Court on all the issues are affirmed as they do not suffer form any illegality or infirmity.” 6. Therefore, once it is proved that the capacitor was in working condition, even as per report of the appellant-defendants, then, its charges cannot possibly be added to the electricity bills of the plaintiff and the Courts below have rightly accepted the case of the plaintiff and negatived the defendants' claim. 7. All other arguments, relatable to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged on behalf of the appellants, in this relevant connection, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the Courts below. 8. Moreover, the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court has taken into consideration and appreciated the entire relevant evidence brought on record by the parties in the right perspective. Having scanned the admissible evidence in relation to the pleadings of the parties, the Courts below have recorded the indicated concurrent findings of fact. Such pure concurrent findings of fact based on the evidence, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the powers conferred under section 100 CPC, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendants, so as to take a contrary view, than that of well reasoned decision already arrived at by the Courts below, in this regard. 9. Meaning thereby, the entire case revolves around the re-appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence on record, which is not legally permissible and is beyond the scope of second appeal. Since no question of law, muchless substantial, is involved in the second appeal, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court Regular Second Appeal No.847 of 2010 4 in case Kashmir Singh v. Harnam Singh & Anr. 2008 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 688 : 2008 AIR (SC) 1749, so, no interference is warranted, in the impugned judgments/decrees of the Courts below as contemplated under section 100 CPC, in the obtaining circumstances of the present case. 10. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendants. 11. In the light of the aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 26.7.2010 Judge AS