ARVIND KUMAR, J. - (1.) BY way of instant second appeal, the appellant-plaintiff seeks to impugn the judgments and decrees passed by the trial Court as also the first Appellate Court.
(2.) IT is apparent that a notice dated 13.11.1997 was issued to the appellant and thereby a penalty of Rs. 17,57,538.50 was imposed, as during the course of inspection, the M and P seals affixed on the meter, installed at the factory premises of the appellant were found to be fake/duplicate. Accordingly, his electricity supply was disconnected. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant approached Haryana State Consumer Redressal Forum, Chandigarh for quashing of exaggerated amount of bill. However, vide order dated 16.12.1997 passed by the Forum the appellant was advised/directed to approach Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the sought relief. Since no amount was deposited by the appellant, the defendant Nigam on 23.3.2002 again issued a reminder and this time he was asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 19,39,817/-. After that, the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of mandatory injunction in the month of June 2002 and laid challenge of both the above-referred notices issued by the defendant Nigam. The suit ended with dismissal so also the appeal preferred by him. Both the Courts below firstly non-suited the plaintiff on the ground of limitation. It has been held that the suit must have been filed within three years of issuance of notice dated 13.11.1997 or at the most from the period when he was directed by the Forum to approach Civil Court, in the month of December 1997 and not from 22.3.2002, as alleged by the plaintiff, when subsequent notice was issued to the plaintiff, which in fact was a reminder issued in continuation of earlier notice dated 13.11.1997. Though an attempt was made by the plaintiff to show that R.P. Singh, in whose presence the meter was inspected and to whom the impugned notice dated 13.11.1997 was handed over, is not his representative, but the very admission of the plaintiff as PW.1, about the presence of his representatives at the spot during the course of inspection, rightly led both the Courts below to hold that the inspection was made in the presence of representatives of the plaintiff, including R.P.Singh, to whom the impugned notice dated 13.11.1997 was given. The plea that the meter was not got examined from the laboratory was turned down by both the Courts below as it was found that the meter was inspected by the staff of M&T Department itself which included AEE (M&P) and since it was a case of theft of energy, as the M& P seals were found fake and not of the defective meter, there was no necessity to get the meter checked from the laboratory. Both the Courts below concurrently held that the amount of fine levied upon the plaintiff is in consonance with the sales Circular No. 4/91 and there was no illegality in the same. No ground is made out to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The appeal is wholly without merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.;