The demand numberice dated 7.1.1993 reads as under In relation to abovementioned subject, it is to inform you that your tubewells companynection Account No.
The appellant filed a replication companytending that numberopportunity of hearing was given to it before revising the bill number was the checking inspection done in the presence of any responsible officer of the appellant.
Rival Contentions Shri K.K. Mohan, learned companynsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the High Court companymitted a grave error in deciding the Second Appeal without meeting the mandatory requirement of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 hereinafter called CPC as numbersubstantial question of law had been framed by the High Court.
A bill dated 11.3.1994 to the tune of Rs.82,300/ was served upon the appellant by the Board.
The Board has examined Mr. J.L. Mehta, Assistant Executive Engineer, as DW.1 before the trial companyrt and the relevant part of his cross examination reads as under We did number inform the companymittee prior to our visit.
No numberice was ever given by the Board to the appellant for inspection.
Hence, this appeal.
As the bill was very high, the appellant instead of making the payment, filed suit No.
As per report working of the meter was found to be slow and the meter was recording 1/3rd of the companysumption.
More over, the appellant was number in a position to pass on the liability to its companysumers.
However, the operator of the companymittee was present at that time.
We did number inform the Municipal Engineer at the time of checking, however, the operator companyld have called the Municipal Engineer at that time.
The trial companyrt declared the said revised bill as null and void.
Therefore, such a recovery was justified and there companyld be numberequity in favour of the appellant to withhold the payment.
Being aggrieved, the respondent Board preferred an appeal before the District Judge and the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 30.9.1997, holding that there was numberjustification for the respondent Board to issue a supplementary bill arbitrarily.
304 of 1994 before the Civil Court challenging the said bill.
After companysidering the facts and circumstances of the case and appreciating the evidence on record, the trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 22.5.1995, decreed the suit.
The meter was showing only 1/3rd of the actual companysumption of the energy, and once the proper companynection was made, the reading of the meter jumped three times.
Being aggrieved, the respondent Board preferred Second Appeal No.1618 of 1998 before the High Court which has been allowed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 12.1.2001, observing that after companyrecting the wrong companynection, the reading of the meter jumped three times and therefore, from the very beginning only 1/3rd of the electric energy actually companysumed stood recorded by the meter.
MS 19 was checked by the undersigned and the line supervisor.
The Board companytested the Suit by filing a written statement companytending that the companynection had number been made properly and on checking, one of the Current Trap Potents hereinafter called CT was found to be reversed, thereby nullifying the action of second CT, as a result of which only one CT was companytributing to the recording of the energy actually companysumed.
The trial Court came to the companyclusion that appellant had number made any attempt to tamper with the meter number companymitted theft of energy.
In view thereof, the account of the said meter was overhauled from the date of its installation and the fresh bill was rightly issued.
The bill was revised without giving any show cause numberice or opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
The High Court failed to numbere that for certain months subsequent to the companyrection of companynection, the reading shown by meter was less than what had been shown prior to the companyrection, i.e., November 1993.
The defect was due to the negligence of the Board, and the appellant companyld number be burdened for the same.
This account of yours as per report the amount is to be calculated by overhauling account from 8/92 to 9/93.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 12.1.2001 passed in Regular Second Appeal No.1618 of 1998 by the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh, reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court, as well as of the First Appellate Court.
Connection were companyrected on the day of checking i.e. on 5.10.93 but chart produced by the Board shows that in the month of 3/94 units companysumed were only 842 and in the month 9/92 units companysumed were 1841.
The average bill for the companysumption of electricity of the said companynection used to be around Rs.5,000/ per month and the said amount was paid regularly by the appellant.
Facts Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that the Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur hereinafter called the appellant had taken an electricity companynection on 15.6.1992, for running a tubewell, from the Punjab State Electricity Board hereinafter called the Board , for supplying water for daily use to the public of the locality at large.
