- (1.) THE appellants-original defendants have preferred the present appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 2.1.1990, passed by the District Judge, Sawaimadhopur, (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court),in Civil Suit No. 1/77,whereby the trial court has decreed the suit of the respondent-original plaintiff, challenging the three disputed electricity bills issued by the appellants. The respondent-plaintiff has also filed Xobjections against the findings given by the trial Court in respect of Issue No.7 framed therein.
(2.) THE respondent-plaintiff, a partnership firm carrying on its business at Sawaimadhopur, had applied for the electricity connections to the appellants-defendants, vide its application dt. 21.11.1973. Accordingly, the respondent was provided three electricity connections, being numbered as 1/1/412, 1/1/413 and 1/1/414 respectively, by the appellants. The said connections became functional on or about 1st of April, 1974. It appears that on or about 2.9.1975, the meters installed at premises of the respondent were checked in the routine course of inspection and the said meters were found to be defective. The appellants, therefore, had replaced the same on that day. Thereafter a surprise check by vigilance squad of appellants was made in the month of February 1976, and again the said meters were found to be defective and also tampered with. The said meters were again changed by new meters and the defective meters were sent to the laboratory at Kota, for inspection. Since, according to the appellants the said meters were found defective or tampered with, the appellants raised three bills of Rs. 10,801.10 for Account No. 1/1/412, Rs. 13,401.47 for Account No. 1/1/413 and Rs. 10,800, for the Account No. 1/1/414, for the period from April 1974 to March 1976. It also appears that thereafter the electricity supply was also disconnected by the appellants. Being aggrieved by the said action of the appellants, the respondent had filed the suit before the trial court, challenging the legality of the said three bills and also the action of disconnecting the electric supply of the respondent. The said suit was resisted by the appellants-defendants denying the allegations made in the plaint and further contending interalia that the meters installed at the premises of the respondent were found to be defective and tampered with on 26.2.1976, when surprise check was made by the vigilance squad, and therefore the bills in question were raised as per the General Conditions of Supply Rules framed by the Electricity Board. The trial court framed as many as 13 issues from the pleadings of the parties. The respondent-plaintiff had examined five witnesses and the appellants-defendants had examined seven witnesses in support of their respective cases. The trial court, after appreciating the evidence on record, decreed the suit of the respondent-plaintiff, so far as the relief of setting-aside of three bills in question were concerned, however, decided Issue No.7 against the respondent-plaintiff by not granting the compensation to the respondent claimed for the period during which the electric connection remained dis-connected, vide the impugned judgment and decree. The learned counsels for the parties taking the Court to the evidence adduced by the respective parties before the trial court, made their submissions at length. In view of the submissions made by them and in view of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the main question that arises for determination before this Court is as to whether the bills in question raised by the appellants against the respondent were in accordance with the provisions contained under the Indian electricity Act 1910, and the General conditions of Supply Rules framed by the appellant no.1- the Board ? According to learned counsel Mr. Ashish Sharma for the appellants, the meters installed at the premises of the respondent were found to be defective and tampered with, when the vigilance squad made surprise inspection on 23.2.76, and thereafter the meters were sent to the laboratory at Kota, where the said meters were found to be defective and tampered with and therefore, the bills were raised as per the General Conditions of Supply Rules. To support his submission, the learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the documentary evidence Ex.A/11, the U.O. Note and the annexures annexed therewith. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that in the said document Ex.A./11, it is stated that the meters with regard to all the three accounts were firstly changed on 2.9.75. Thereafter a surprise check was made by the Vigilance Squad in February 1976. The observations made by the Vigilance Squad have been reproduced in the said U.O. Note Ex.A/11, from which it appears that the meter with Account No.413 was found running slow, however, the terminal and body seals were found intact; the meter of account no. 414 was found running stopped, however, meter body seal was found intact and meter terminal was found not intact and cut out seals were not found. With regard to Account No. 412, it was found that the meter was running slow, however, meter seals were found intact and meter cut out seals were not found. From the said observations mentioned in Ex.A- 11, it clearly transpires that in none of the meters, the body seals were found tampered with and on the contrary the seals were found intact on the meters. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show as to how such observations could be termed as tampering with the matters at the instance of the respondent, more particularly, when the seals of the meters in question were found intact. Though, it was specifically submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the said meters were subsequently sent to laboratory at Kota for inspection and the meters of the Account No. 412 and 414 were found to be tampered with, the learned counsel has failed to reconcile the said records, namely the observations made by the Vigilance Squad to the effect that the seals were intact in both the meters, and the report of laboratory in which the seals were found tampered with for the Account No. 412 and 414. The concerned officers of the appellants-defendants examined before the trial court have also not stated in their respective evidence as to how the respondent had tampered with the meters in question amounting to committing fraud or theft of electricity. The General Conditions of Supply Rules, on the basis of which the bills in question have been raised by the appellants also did not appear to have been produced before the lower court, nor the learned counsel for the appellants during the course of arguments was in a position to produce the same before this Court. Even if it is presumed that the appellants were entitled to make demand of charges as per the said General Conditions of Supply Rules in case of theft of energy or fraud committed by the consumer, the appellants-defendants have not been able to prove as to how fraud or theft of energy was committed by the respondent.
(3.) FROM the evidence on record, it transpires that the meters were changed by the appellants earlier on 2.9.1975 as the said meters were found to be defective. At the time of changing the said meters earlier, the appellants had not made any allegations against the respondents with regard to the tampering with meters and had simply replaced the same finding them to be defective. Again, at the time of surprise check in Feb.1976, also the respective seals of the meters were found intact, of course, two meters were found running slow and one meter was found having stopped running. However, that would not prove that the respondent had tampered with the meters. Under the circumstances, only reasonable inference which could be drawn would be that the meters replaced by the appellants were defective and in that case, the appellants could have referred the matter to the Electrical Inspector as per Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, and after following the due procedure, the bills could have been raised against the respondents. No such procedure appears to have been followed by the appellants and the bills in question were issued on the basis of average consumption during the period from April 1974 to Feb. 1976. When the appellants themselves had changed the meters on 2.9.75,they having been found to be defective, the appellants could not have issued the bill for the said period on the ground that the meters were found tampered with. In absence of any cogent material on record to justify the issuance of bills in question and the trial court having discussed the evidence at length, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and decree. There being no merits in the present appeal, the same deserves to be dismissed. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondent does not press for the cross objections filed by the respondent, and therefore, the same also stand dismissed accordingly. In that view of the matter, the appeal and cross-objections are dismissed.;