Delhi High Court
Santoshi Lal vs North Delhi Power Ltd.(Ndpl) on 15 March, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No.153/2011
% 15th March, 2011
SANTOSHI LAL ...... Appellant
Through: Mr.S.Shahi, Advocate
VERSUS
NORTH DELHI POWER LTD.(NDPL) ...... Respondent
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal is to
the impugned judgment and decree dated 3.1.2011 whereby the suit
of the appellant/plaintiff for declaration and injunction was dismissed
against the local power company by holding that the appellant/plaintiff
was guilty of direct theft of electricity, on not one but two occasions
i.e., on 23.2.2006 and on 25.2.2009.
2. With respect to the first report dated 23.2.2006, the Trial
Court has noted the fact that the appellant/plaintiff in his cross
examination himself admitted that he was stealing electricity by
tapping the main lines. The relevant part of the impugned judgment
in this regard is Para 20 which reads as under:-
RFA No.153/2011 Page 1 of 3
"The plaintiff himself stepped in to the witness box as
PW-1 and reiterated the position in the affidavit in
evidence which is highlighted by him in the plaint. But,
in the cross-examination he failed to stand the
questions put to him on behalf of defendant. He
admitted that it was correct that he was committing
theft of electricity through illegal wire by taping NDPL
L.V. main lines. He also admitted that both his
electricity metres were removed after inspection dated
23.2.2006. He also admitted that a load of 6.173 kilo
watt was found at his premises for industrial purpose
and a load of 2.67 kilo watt was found for domestic
purpose at his premises during inspection dated
23.2.2006. He also admitted that he was present in his
premises during inspection on 23.2.2006."
(underlining added).
3. Therefore, the appellant/plaintiff himself in his cross-
examination has admitted that he had committed theft of electricity
and, therefore, there cannot be any challenge to the inspection report
dated 23.2.2006. So far as the second report dated 25.2.2009 is
concerned, though the appellant/plaintiff disputed having committed
theft of electricity, however, the Trial Court noted that not only the
appellant/plaintiff admitted his signatures on the report, he also
admitted his signatures on the seizure memo of illegal material being
the wires etc., EX.PW1/D2. The Trial Court has also arrived at a finding
of the fact that the case set up by the appellant/plaintiff for using of
electricity through generator is quite clearly to be disbelieved because
the appellant/plaintiff did not file any proof of either purchase or
renting out of a generator or purchase of kerosene oil for allegedly
running the generator.
RFA No.153/2011 Page 2 of 3
4. Admittedly, there is no challenge as laid down by the
appellant/plaintiff with respect to the calculation of the bills on the
basis of the reports.
5. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or
perversity in the impugned judgment and decree which calls for
interference by this Court in appeal. The appeal is therefore
dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
March 15, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ak
