AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Amol Rattan Singh, J
CM No. 1624-C-2020
The delay in re-filing the accompanying appeal is sought to be condoned vide this application, with it stated in paragraph 2 thereof that the appeal
having been filed on 18.12.2019, it was returned with some objections, including to the effect that the decree sheet issued by the trial court had not
been annexed alongwith.
The decree sheet having been applied for and having been received on 04.02.2020, thereafter the appeal was re-filed, leading to a delay of 09 days in
such re-filing.
The application is duly accompanied by the affidavit of an SDO of the appellant corporation and consequently, finding the reason for the delay to be
not unreasonable, the application is allowed and the aforesaid delay is condoned.
The application stands disposed of accordingly.
By this appeal, the defendant-UHBVNL and its officers impugn the judgments of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yamunanagar, and the
Additional District Judge, Yamunanagar, decreeing the suit of the respondent-plaintiff in its favour, such suit being one seeking a declaration to the
effect that the amount of Rs. 49,450/- debited to the electricity bill of the plaintiff on 15.02.2011, is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the
plaintiff in any manner whatsoever.
The respondent-plaintiff is a firm running a factory, with J.P. Goenka shown to be its proprietor, with an electricity connection bearing account no. S2-
445 sanctioned to it after the electricity connection earlier running in the same premises, bearing account number S2-348, (stated to have been
sanctioned in the name of the father of the proprietor of the respondent-firm), was 'closed'.
That connection was disconnected on the request of the respondent-plaintiff, with the outstanding amount (as is contended to have been disclosed to
the respondent), of Rs. 995.20/-, stated to have been deposited vide receipt number 184/378 on 13.06.1994, with therefore there being no outstanding
amount remaining to be paid qua that account, as per the case of the respondent-plaintiff.
However, in the electricity bill for the month of February 2011, qua the new connection, i.e. S2-445, an amount of Rs. 54,033/- was shown to be
outstanding. That amount included a sum of Rs. 49,450/-, as had been shown as “sundry chargesâ€, which the respondent was directed to deposit
by 24.02.2011.
The respondent-plaintiff, as per its plaint, had shown the documents closing the earlier connection, including the receipt issued in respect of payment of
Rs. 995.20/-, to the appellant-Corporation, but was however told that if it does not pay the total amount of Rs. 54,033/- by 24.02.2011, the electricity
would be disconnected.
It was further contended in the plaint that no notice in fact was given to the proprietor of the plaintiff firm for personal hearing, and that no details had
been provided as to the amount demanded.
The plaintiff had earlier filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamunanagar, which was withdrawn
“on technical grounds†on 29.02.2012, after which the suit in the present lis was instituted.
Upon notice having been issued to the appellant-defendants, in their written statement, it was stated that the old connection was got disconnected by
the proprietor of the plaintiff-firm “as per his own willâ€, without depositing “the defaulting amount†and that he had also “deliberately
obtained the new connection†bearing no. S2/445.
He had however, deposited 25% of the disputed amount, pursuant to an order of the trial court itself, in the present lis.
As regards the plea of limitation taken by the plaintiff in its suit, it was stated in the written statement that it was public money and there was no
limitation that would operate to recover the amount due.
On the aforesaid plea, the following issues were framed by the trial court:-
“i). Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for declaration as prayed for? OPP
ii). Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
iii) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is legally not maintainable? OPD
iv) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?
v) Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands? OPD
vi) Relief.â€.
The plaintiff, other than examining its Proprietor, by way of documentary evidence produced the following:-
“Ex. P1: Memo no. 2160/HSEB dated, 08.07.1994;
Ex.P1/A & P2 Bill receipts (electricity connection no. S2/348);
Ex.P3: Electricity bill dated 15.02.2011 and
Ex. P4: Copy of judgment dated 29.02.2012 passed in Consumer Complaint.â€
The appellant-defendants, other than tendering a ledger book as Ex. D-1 before the trial court, did not examine any witness.
On the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the trial court held that as per Ex. P-1, the father of the petitioner, i.e. the previous owner of the
electricity connection bearing number S2-348, was asked to make a payment of Rs. 995.20/- and vide Exs. P1-A and P-2, the said payment had been
duly made.
The impugned electricity bill was shown to have described the amount of Rs. 49,450/- simply as “sundry chargesâ€, with the total amount of the bill
being Rs. 54,033/-, qua the new electricity connection bearing no. S2-445.
It was further found by the trial court that as per the evidence led, no notice had been issued to the plaintiff as regards any personal hearing to be
given to the proprietor of the firm, with even the ledger, Ex. D-1, not actually proved (by way of examining any witness in support thereof).
Further, no details of the account qua the previous electricity connection had been given, as to how 'the impugned amount' had been arrived at, with
further no order or rule of the Department having been placed on record to show as to how the said amount could have been charged from the
plaintiff (simply as sundry charges).
Subsequently however, at the time of arguments, counsel for the appellant-defendants had relied upon a sale circular no. U-63/2006, which the trial
court found was one that stipulated that at least a 7 day notice was necessary to be issued to any consumer qua any objections he/she might have qua
any demands raised.
Consequently, finding that no such notice had been issued and in any case, no details having been given as to how the amount of Rs. 49,450/- was
being demanded from the plaintiff, other than by way of “sundry chargesâ€, the suit was decreed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff, it already
having been observed by that court earlier that the demand had been raised 16 years after the previous connection had been disconnected.
In the first appeal filed by the present appellant, the learned Additional District Judge noticed the aforesaid facts, as also the argument raised before
that court that there was no period of limitation prescribed “in the present caseâ€.
However, the said argument was found to be bereft of logic, on the ground that the period of limitation (to recover any money), is no different for any
Government department and universally applies to all; and even as regards the appeal, it was found to have been filed beyond the period of limitation,
(with no specific period of delay however given in the judgment).
As regards the recovery itself, of allegedly old dues, having been sought to be made 16 years after the old connection had been disconnected, that
court also found no reason to entertain the appeal, which was dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/- imposed, with it further directed that the amount of
Rs. 49,450/- as shown to be loss to the corporation, was obviously due to carelessness, non-seriousness and non-efficiency of its officers/officials and
consequently, the corporation ('Bijli Board') would be entitled to recover it from the “personal pockets of the appellants.â€
Before this court, the factual position as has been noticed in detail by the trial court and referred to by the first appellate court, obviously, could not be
denied by learned counsel for the appellant, to the effect that other than the ledger Ex. D-1, no evidence whatsoever was led as to in what manner the
amount of Rs. 49,450/- had accrued to the account of the respondent-plaintiff, though learned counsel submitted that other than the testimony of the
plaintiff, as regards the amount of Rs. 995.20/- having been paid, he did not even seek to get the receipt ledger produced in court.
Having considered even that argument, I find myself absolutely unable to interfere in the impugned judgments, with no evidence whatsoever having
been led by the appellant-defendants as to in what manner the “sundry charges†of Rs. 49,450/- had accrued as regards the account pertaining to
the previous electricity connection installed in the premises, which in any case was simply added to his bill as such charges, 16 years after the previous
connection had been disconnected.
Even before this court, nothing has been even attempted to be shown, as to what constituted “sundry charges†to the tune of Rs.49,450/-.
In any case, I also agree with the learned courts below that such amount, even if explained (which it has not been), could not have been demanded
qua a connection admittedly closed 16 years earliier.
Consequently, finding no merit in this appeal, it is dismissed in limine, with costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited towards the funds of the Haryana
Legal Services Authority, with the costs of the suit to be borne throughout by the appellant-defendants.
It needs to be noticed that as regards the earlier complaint filed before the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, no argument has
been raised, nor is one seen to be raised in the grounds of appeal, as regards that complaint operating as res judicata.
CM No. 1625-C-2020
The appeal itself having been dismissed on merits, this application, seeking condonation of a delay of 12 days in filing the accompanying appeal, has
been rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such.