Smt.Santosh Kumari vs Bses Yamuna Power Ltd.
2011 Latest Caselaw 2025 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                         Date of Judgment: 07.4.2011

+                         RSA No.48/2011


        SMT.SANTOSH KUMARI                          ...........Appellant
                     Through:             Mr.R.L.Sharma and
                                          Mr.D.D.Sharma, Advocates.
                    Versus

        BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD.            ..........Respondent
                     Through: Mr.Manish Srivastva, Advocate.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
        see the judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                       Yes

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

                                                                     Yes

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated

10.01.2011 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated

28.10.2010 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff Santosh Kumari

seeking recovery of Rs.2,30,966/- had been dismissed.

2. This is a second appeal. It is yet at the admission. The

substantial question of law have been formulated on page 8 of the

body of the appeal.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that she was running a factory at

property bearing No.C-449/1, Chhajjupur, Sahdara, Delhi. Two

electricity connections of 10 HP Industrial Power had been

installed in the aforenoted premises. Plaintiff who was the owner

of this property had sold it to Smt.Saroj Aggarwal and

Smt.Kanchan Aggarwal but she nevertheless continued to run the

factory from the said premises; she was retaining these premises

as a tenant. On 04.3.2000 a raid was conducted by the DVB

officials illegally and bills were raised upon her. Plaintiff had filed

a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the DVB

restraining them from taking payment of the aforenoted bills; the

said suit was dismissed; appeal was also dismissed; plaintiff was

forced to deposit a sum of Rs.1,09,126/-. On 19.6.2008 the plaintiff

learnt that the mater installed in her premises had been removed

without her knowledge and a new meter had been installed in the

name of Sohan Lal Aggarwal. Legal notice was issued by the

plaintiff to the BSES. The defendant had illegally removed this

meter even after the penalty amount has been deposited by the

plaintiff; this is a breach of trust; plaintiff has suffered mental

agony and harassment; claim of Rs.2,30,966/- was founded on

these averments. The details of her claims have been contained in

the prayer clause of the plaint. The same have been perused.

4. The defendant had not filed any written statement; his

opportunity to file the written statement was closed.

5. In support of her case, plaintiff has examined one witness.

PW-1 Devi Dayal Sharma had tendered his examination in chief by

way of affidavit Ex.PW-1/1; he was deposing on behalf of his wife.

He had proved on record the electricity bills which have been

issued in the name of Sohan Lal Aggarwal as also the legal notice

sent by him. Thereafter prosecution evidence was closed. The

claim of the plaintiff was rejected on the ground that the plaintiff

has failed to prove her case. The plaintiff who has come to the

court must stand on its own legs; it has to prove its case. The

amount claimed by her was not in any manner substantiated. This

has been endorsed in the impugned judgment.

6. The amount claimed in terms of the prayer clause read as

under:

(a) Refund of the amount deposited for penalty bills details in para no.8 of suit Rs.1,09,126/-

(b) Loss and damage for defendant, mental agony harassment and expenditure incurred on facing the civil suit and appeal for 7 years. Rs.1,00,000/-

(c) Court fee paid in civil suit no.216/2000 and appeal no.RCA/3/2005 (3420+3420=6840) Rs.6,840/-

(d) Expenditure incurred on typing and conveyance regarding civil suit, appeal and present suit -Rs.5,000/-

(e) Development charges and meter security etc. deposited at the time of installment of meters.

Rs.10,000/-

Total amount of recovery Rs.2,30,966/-

7. Before this Court it has been submitted that other amounts

are not being pressed except the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which

has been claimed on the account of mental agony and harassment

of the plaintiff. The other amount as detailed in clause (a) was

admittedly the amount which have deposited by the plaintiff under

the orders of the court which orders have since attained a finality.

The suit had been dismissed; the appeal filed against the said order

has also been dismissed, pursuant thereto plaintiff had deposited

Rs.1,09.126/-. Learned counsel for the appellant states that this

amount as also amounts (c) to (e) are not being pressed.

8. Affidavit by way of evidence of the plaintiff has been perused.

Except a one line bald statement that the plaintiff had suffered

mental agony and harassment there is no other detail of the said

mental agony and harassment. Even otherwise this deposition has

been made by the husband of the plaintiff who has come into

witness box as PW-1. Plaintiff herself has not come into witness

box. The metal agony and harassment by a party would be known

by only the party concerned; it would be in the special knowledge

and domain of the person himself/herself. Both the courts below

had rightly noted that there is no evidence before the court to

substantiate the claim which was made by the plaintiff. The

impugned judgment does not in any manner call for any

interference. No substantial question of law has arisen. Appeal is

dismissed.

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

APRIL 7, 2011 nandan