Chattisgarh High Court
Inderchand Patni vs Assistant Engineer And Others on 17 February, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
FA No. 189 of 2009
Inderchand Patni S/o Shri Gulab Chand Patni, Rice And Dal Mill,
Nayapara, Durg, Tahsil and District Durg(CG)
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Assistant Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Durg, District
Durg (CG)
2. Superintending Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Durg,
District Durg (CG)
3. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Through Superintending Engineer,
Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Durg, District Durg (CG)
---- Respondents
For Appellant : Shri P.R. Patankar, Advocate appears along with
Shri Vaibhav Dhar Diwan, Advocate
For Respondents : Shri B.P. Gupta, Advocate
Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal
Order on Board
17.02.2022
1. This appeal has been preferred by the Plaintiff under Section 96 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC'),
questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated
19.08.2009, passed by 8th Additional District Judge(FTC), Durg(CG) in Civil
Suit No.1-B/2005, whereby the Plaintiff's claim for recovery of
Rs.1,21,000/- has been dismissed. The parties to this appeal shall be
referred hereinafter as per their description before the Court below.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Plaintiff instituted a suit
claiming recovery of Rs.1,21,000/- by submitting, inter alia, that on
07.03.2002, some of the employees of the Chhattisgarh State Electricity
Board, the Defendants herein, inspected the electric meter in his absence
and when he approached them, it was informed that the seal of the electric
meter was tampered and he was liable to pay Rs.65,058/-. It is pleaded
further that since the said amount of Rs.65,058/- has been recovered
illegally owing to the inspection of the meter installed by them in his
absence and as the same has been obtained by threatening that in case
the same is not paid, an FIR would be lodged against him, therefore, he is
entitled to get back the said amount of Rs.65,058/- along with its interest,
i.e. Rs.23,420/-. It is pleaded further that the Plaintiff was the owner of the
Mill situated at Nayapara, Durg and electricity supply for the same was
done through Electric Meter No.62-01-90-92-900949 of 40 HP installed by
the Defendants at the distance of 150 meters away from the Mill and being
consumer, the Plaintiff paid all the dues. It is pleaded further that in the
year 2000-01, the consumption of the electricity was reduced to a
considerable extent, as such, the Plaintiff moved an application on
10.04.2001 for reducing the load from 40 HP to 25 HP and as per the
rules, the same was to be acted upon within the period of 2 months,
however, the Defendants have failed to entertain the said application within
the prescribed period and instead, the same has been done after a delay
of 10 months, therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs.32,850/-
towards damages. The Plaintiff is, thus, entitled to recovery for a total sum
of Rs.1,21,000/- along with interest @ 1 % per month from the date of
institution of the suit till its realization.
3. Defendants have contested the aforesaid claim by submitting, inter alia,
that the electric meter installed at the premises was in the name of Gulab
Chand Patni and not in the name of Plaintiff, Inder Chand Patni, and
therefore, the Plaintiff, who is not the consumer, is not entitled to institute
the suit. It is contested further on the ground that on 07.03.2002, the
Plaintiff was found guilty of tampering with the electric meter, as such,
additional fee of Rs.65,058/- was raised by the Defendants without any
undue influence or coercion, and therefore, the Plaintiff is not entitled to
any amount as claimed from the Defendants, which is even otherwise
barred by time.
4. After considering the evidence led by the parties, the trial Court arrived at
a conclusion that the Plaintiff is not the consumer of the Defendants and in
fact, his father, namely, Gulab Chand Patni was the consumer of the
Defendants. It held further that the alleged amount of Rs.65,058/- was not
recovered illegally from the Plaintiff as the electric meter, which was
inspected in his presence, was found to be tampered with by him and,
observed further that the claim of Rs.32,850/- towards damages is barred
by time. In consequence, the Plaintiff's claim has been dismissed vide
impugned judgment and decree, which has been questioned by way of this
appeal.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the finding of the
Court below holding that the alleged electric meter was inspected in
presence of the Plaintiff, is apparently contrary to law. It is contended
further that the Court below ought to have seen and held that his signature
on documentary evidence like, Panchanama (Ex.D-1) and seizure memo
(Ex.D-2) along with others were obtained by putting undue pressure on
him that if the said amount is not deposited, an FIR would be lodged
against him. Further contention of the counsel for the Plaintiff is that since
the application which was made on 10.04.2001 for reducing the load from
40 HP to 25 HP, was not decided in time, therefore, the Plaintiff's claim
with regard to damages of Rs.32,850/- ought not to have been refused.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents has
supported the impugned judgment and decree as passed by the Court
below.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record
carefully.
8. From perusal of the averments made in the plaint wherein, it has been
alleged that since the electric meter was inspected in his absence on
07.03.2002, and therefore, the alleged amount of Rs.65,058/- owing to
tampering of the electric meter has been recovered illegally from him by
putting undue pressure upon him that if the same is not deposited, an FIR
would be lodged against the Plaintiff. The burden to establish the said fact
is, therefore, upon the Plaintiff. However, from perusal of the documentary
evidence, particularly, Panchanama (Ex.D-1) and seizure memo (Ex.D-2),
both were executed on 07.03.2002, would reveal the fact that the alleged
meter was inspected in his presence as his signature was found in both
these documents. That apart, the Plaintiff in his evidence, particularly, at
para 21, has stated specifically that he has not lodged any complaint that
his signature has been obtained on 07.03.2002 on it by threatening and/or
by putting any undue influence upon him. In view thereof, merely on the
basis of his oral and bald statement, it cannot be said that the alleged
electric meter was inspected in his absence or the alleged amount of
Rs.65,058/- has been recovered illegally from him. The finding of the Court
below in this regard is, therefore, deserves to be and is hereby affirmed.
9. In so far as the recovery of amount of Rs.32,850/- towards damages is
concerned, the same appears to be barred by time. As it appears from the
record that an application dated 10.04.2001, made by the Plaintiff was
received by the Defendants on 24.04.2001, wherein, it was prayed for
reducing the load from 40 HP to 25 HP, was not decided within the period
of 2 months and, therefore, he is entitled to the alleged amount of
damages. It, however, appears that the requisite period of two months
expired on 23.06.2001 as such, the claim in this regard should have been
made within the period of three years from it, i.e. by 24.04.2004 but, it was
made on 05.03.2005, i.e. much beyond the prescribed period of three
years. In view thereof, the damages as claimed by the Plaintiff has rightly
been refused by the trial Court by holding it to be barred by time.
10. In view of the aforesaid background, I do not find any substance in this
appeal. The appeal being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to cost(s).
A decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal)
JUDGE
sunita
