- (1.) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 02.04.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Ludhiana whereby suit for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction filed by appellant-plaintiff has been dismissed and against the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2014 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana whereby appeal preferred by the appellant-plaintiff has also been dismissed. For convenience sake, reference to parties is being made as per their status in the suit.
(2.) The detailed facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of the courts below and are not required to be reproduced. However, the brief facts, as pleaded in plaint are to the effect that plaintiff is consumer of electric connection No. SR-71/407 SP and defendants are supplier of electricity against consideration. The plaintiff is making payment of each and every consumption bill and nothing is due against him. It was further pleaded that during the period of 11.08.2008 to 23.08.2008, plaintiff was out of station. All of sudden, the defendants had raised demand of Rs. 2,91,948/- on the basis of concocted charges of theft of electricity vide memo No. 3517 of 19.08.2008 which was replied but the defendants had disconnected the connection on 01.09.2008. The demand is liable to be quashed and disconnection of electricity be declared as illegal, as plaintiff has been deprived of all rights provided under the law. Alleged action has been taken in the absence of plaintiff. On 24.08.2008, when the plaintiff reached his work place, he had been given provisional assessment along with copy of checking register dated 13.08.2008, ME Lab meter investigation report dated 22.08.2008 by Darshan Kumar, owner of adjoining factory. No intimation was given to plaintiff and action was taken in his absence in hurry. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff had not tampered with the seals affixed on the meter nor made any theft of electricity. The consumption data of the plaintiff clearly clarifies that there was no theft of electricity and seals affixed at the time of installation of meter were existing and the plaintiff had done nothing with the seals. The plaintiff had never been found committing theft of electricity and charges have been levelled on the basis of assumption. The defendant had calculated the recoverable amount on wrong footing and against the provisions of prevailing instructions. No notification regarding application of Electricity Act and rules framed thereunder has been issued but the defendants had raised the demand under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It was further pleaded that disconnection of the electric connection of plaintiff without providing opportunity of being heard is illegal, mala fide, against the provisions of law, principles of natural justice, null and void and amount so charged on account of concocted allegations of theft of electricity is liable to be quashed. Hence, suit was filed.
(3.) Defendants resisted the suit and filed written statement taking various preliminary objections. It was submitted that electricity connection of plaintiff was checked by the officials of PSEB on 13.08.2008 in the presence of Darshan Kumar, who represented himself as present owner/consumer of the electricity connection. The checking officials found that meter was tampered with and it was removed in the presence of Darshan Kumar. It was got packed. Darshan Kumar had signed the report dated 13.08.2008 after admitting the same as correct. Thereafter, notice for unauthorized use of electricity under Section 126 of the Electricity Act was served upon the plaintiff on 23.08.2008 and in the provisional order of assessment, consumer was requested to deposit Rs. 2,91,948/- within seven days and was given liberty to submit objection, if any, within seven days on receipt of notice dated 19.08.2008. It was further pleaded that in fact amount of Rs. 4,68,619/- was recoverable from plaintiff, but due to inadvertence and wrong calculation the amount was charged as Rs. 2,91,948/- and on coming to know about this fact, fresh notice dated 11.09.2008 for Rs. 4,68,619/- was served upon the plaintiff, but the plaintiff had failed to deposit the amount within the PSEB On checking, ME seals affixed on the meter body was found fake and the welding of the meter was also found to be tampered with and a paper seal affixed on the box on the counter of the meter was also found to be tampered/torn. The officials of PSEB had declared it a case of theft of electricity. No cause of action had arisen to the plaintiff to file the suit. Other averments in plaint were denied.;