N.D.M.C. vs Ravinder Singh & Ors.
2018 Latest Caselaw 6399 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         RFA No.586/2006

%                                                   23rd October, 2018

N.D.M.C.
                                                          ..... Appellant
                                   Through :   Mr.Sriharsha Peechara,
                                               Standing Counsel
                                               (Mob.9717466788)

                          versus


RAVINDER SINGH & ORS.
                                                        ..... Respondents

Through : None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant in the suit

impugning the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 27.04.2006 by which

the trial court has decreed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for

the sum of Rs.7,98,000/-, for an amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest @

12% p.a. from the date of the judgment till recovery. The claim of the

respondent/plaintiff for a sum of Rs.7,98,000/- was broken up in the

plaint as under:-

i       Compensation for rent    paid         Rs.18,000/-
        for the period about      six
        weeks @ Rs.12,054/-       per
        month for the rent       paid
        without electricity.

ii      Loss of business on the               Rs.50,000/-
        occasion of Diwali &
        Gurpurav during the relevant
        period.

iii     Litigation expenses in two            Rs.25,000/-
        suits, appeal and LPA

iv      Loss       of       reputation        Rs.4,00,000/-
        humiliation in the business
        community      general    and
        market in particular.

v       Mental torture                        Rs.3,00,000/-

vi      Notice fee                            Rs.5,000/-

2. The appellant/defendant contested the suit and denied the

claim of the respondent/plaintiff. It was pleaded that the

respondent/plaintiff was in default of payment of licence fee and in

fact proceedings for eviction were going on. The suit was thus prayed

to be dismissed.

3. Trial court framed the following issues:

"(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of the said amount as prayed? OPP

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the amount of damages, as claimed? OPP"

4. Trial court has dismissed the suit for all claims except

decreeing the claim of loss caused of Rs.50,000/- to the business on

account of electricity been illegally disconnected for a period of 12

days from 8.11.2000 to 20.11.2000. Trial court has held that the

appellant/defendant was not justified in disconnecting the electricity

for the Claim of Rs.2,81,844.50/- in as much as how this figure was

arrived at, was not proved by the appellant/defendant. In fact the trial

court notes that as per the case of the respondent/plaintiff only a sum

of Rs.8,434/- was due from the respondent/plaintiff to the

appellant/defendant. Trial court though has held that the

respondent/plaintiff failed to prove the loss suffered by him on

account of disconnection of electricity, however, the trial court has

held that since the electricity was disconnected for 12 days during

festival time, therefore damages of Rs.50,000/- was awarded for the

loss of business suffered on account of illegal disconnection of

electricity and mental agony and harassment to the

respondent/plaintiff. The relevant discussion of the trial court in this

regard is contained in the following paragraphs of the impugned

judgment: -

"The defendant had not filed on record any demand notice raised by them and despite having appeared in the witness box, they have failed to show how they have claimed a sum of Rs.2,81,844.50/- from the plaintiff. To sum up the things, the defendant had only taken a cryptic stand in the WS and the witness produced by it was also vague in answering to the questions put to him in the cross-examination. Besides, he was unable to give any details of the amount due from the plaintiff. It is an admitted fact that the defendant had disconnected the electricity supply of the plaintiff and after going through the evidence, it can be said that the defendant has failed to show that the electricity supply had been disconnected for any justifiable reason. More so in the light of the fact that there were so many letters written by the plaintiff continuously to the defendant to settle the accounts, but, instead of clarifying its decision, the defendant arbitrarily disconnected the electricity supply to the shop of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was, thus, put to disadvantage by the unlawful exercise of the powers by the officials of the defendant; the defendant has, thus, caused injury to the plaintiff. It was the right of the plaintiff to be able to carry on his business peacefully from his shop which had been allotted to him. Also, he was entitled to the amenities including electricity supply therein when he had made all the payments and no

electricity dues were there against him nor, his licence could be cancelled in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The plaintiff was put to harassment and disadvantage during the festival time by the wrongful disconnection of the electricity by the defendant. The defendant is, thus, liable to compensate the plaintiff for the disadvantage.

However, the plaintiff has failed to prove what was the loss suffered by him by the disconnection of the electricity supply. There is nothing on record to show what was the quantum of the business he normally gets every month and what business he could have done in the festival time. However, it cannot be denied that the electricity supply was disconnected for eleven days and was restored only on 12th day during the festival time; the plaintiff was obviously put to harassment and mental agony.

In the facts & circumstances of the case, I deem fit to grant a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation/damages for the loss suffered by the plaintiff by the wrongful disconnection of the electricity from his shop from 08.10.2000 to 20.11.2000; due to which he could not transact his business briskly during the festival time and also had to underg mental agony and harassment. The suit of the plaintiff is accordingly decreed for a sum of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 12% pa from the date of this order till its recovery and costs. Decree sheet be prepared in terms of the order. File be consigned to the record room."

(Underlining is added)

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant has argued

that the trial court has committed grave illegality by decreeing the suit

for a sum of Rs.50,000/- by overlooking the cross-examination of the

respondent/plaintiff on 10.03.2005 by the appellant/defendant, as the

very first few lines of the cross-examination show that though the

respondent/plaintiff has claimed to file Income Tax Returns, but no

Income Tax Returns or any other documentary evidence was filed to

show claim of loss of business for a sum of Rs.50,000/- on the eve of

Diwali. It was further argued that no evidence of status was filed of

carrying on business for having allegedly sufferred mental agony and

harassment. The counsel for the appellant/defendant is justified in

arguing that in the entire plaint as well as in the evidence led on behalf

of the respondent/plaintiff, it is not stated as to what was the type of

business which the respondent/plaintiff was carrying on in the

licenced shop and, therefore, the trial court could not have substituted

requirement and analysis of evidence by making a wholly unjustified

guesswork of the loss suffered.

6. In my opinion, the arguments urged on behalf of the

appellant/defendant have to be accepted. No doubt the electricity

remained illegally disconnected for a period of 12 days in the shop of

respondent/plaintiff from 08.10.2000 to 20.11.2000, however in every

case where the damages are claimed, such damages have to be proved

by showing how the loss was suffered. Admittedly, in the entire plaint

or the evidence there is not even a whisper as to what was the business

which the respondent/plaintiff was carrying out in the licenced shop

run by the respondent/plaintiff, besides the fact that not a single

document was filed by the respondent/plaintiff, be it the Bill Book or

Income Tax Returns to show the volume of business being done by the

respondent/plaintiff from the licenced shop. Consequently the profits

which could have been lost by the respondent/plaintiff on account of

illegal disconnection of electricity for 12 days and causing of mental

agony and harassment do not stand proved.

7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is

allowed. The impugned Judgment of the trial court dated 27.04.2006

is set aside and the suit of the respondent/plaintiff is dismissed.

Parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree-sheet be prepared.

Trial court record be sent back forthwith.

OCTOBER 23, 2018                             VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
sa