- (1.) Having been non suited by both the learned courts below recording concurrent findings of the facts, plaintiff has approached this Court by way of instant regular second appeal.
(2.) Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned first appellate court in para 2 to 5 of the impugned judgment, are that earlier the plaintiff had filed a complaint No.1040 of 2002 on 04.12.2002 before the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal challenging the notice of assessment issued vide memo No.4143 dated 28.11.2002 for deposit of an amout of Rs. 57,831/- on account of compensation with regard to mal practice.
(3.) The learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal decided the complaint and set aside the impugned notice demanding an amount of Rs.57,831/- and directed the defendants not to charge the said amount from the plaintiff, vide order dated 03.09.2004. Against the said order, defendants filed first appeal bearing No. 3178 of 2004 on 3.12.2004, which was decided by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula vide order dated 22.06.2011 with the observations that as per the provisions of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, 1986, the plaintiff did not fall within the definition of "Consumer".It was further averred that plaintiff was having one electricity connection bearing A/C No.A-1042 for small power and had been regularly making the payment of the current energy bills, as per consumption recorded by the meter. The premises of the plaintiff were checked by the officials of the defendants on 09.11.2002 and nothing was found abnormal in the meter as well as in the meter seals. They obtained the signatures of the plaintiff on the alleged checking report. On 11.11.2002, the officials of the defendants as per policy, changed the Electro- Mechanical meter with that of Electronic meter. On 28.11.2002, the plaintiff received a notice of assessment bearing memo No. 4143 dated 28.11.2002, wherein it was mentioned that M&T seals were found fake as per M& T Lab report memo No.1075 dated 26.11.2002 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 57,831/-. The alleged impugned notice dated 28.11.2002 was illegal, null and void was and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff on the grounds that the meter was removed from the premises of the plaintiff on 11.11.2002 without any observation in the meter or in the meter seals. The notice has been issued against the terms and conditions of supply, arbitrarily and illegally. Charges of theft of electric energy against the plaintiff was illegal, against the rules and regulations and the notice was issued by the officials of the defendants without giving any chance of hearing. It was further pleaded that after receiving the impugned notice, the plaintiff approached defendant no.2 and requested to withdraw the impugned notice being illegal, null and void, but he did not pay heed to the request of the plaintiff, rather threatened that in case the payment was not made, the electricity supply would be disconnected. Hence, the suit was filed.;