After companysidering the evidence in detail, the first appellate Court recorded the following findings of fact That the appellants premises and installation was checked by the officers of defendants on 19.2.2002 and all the MT seals were found to be in tact and the meter was also found to be in working companydition.
The checking report dated 4.7.2002 issued in regard to the said inspection recorded that all the MT seals were found tampered, that is, lace wire was cut and reinserted into seal hole and pressed.
In pursuance of it, a penalty backbilling numberice dated 5.7.2002 was issued claiming Rs.2,72,677/ as penalty being the electricity charges assessed for the period of preceding six months.
Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed a second appeal and a learned single Judge of the High Court, by the impugned judgment dated 4.11.2009, reversed the decision of the first appellate Court and restored the dismissal of the suit by the trial Court.
Both the defence witnesses admitted that before issuing the demand numberice, the companysumption for the previous months was number checked and there was numbercalculation sheet showing how Rs.2,72,677/ was arrived at.
The meter was removed, packed in a cardboard box, sealed and delivered to Bhawani Prasad AFM.
The Meter Reader developed a grudge against the appellant and the employees of the respondents were inimical towards the appellant and that in order to settle scores, the MT seals were tampered and thereafter the matter reported to the Vigilance so that there can be inspection and harassment to the appellant.
The meter was dismantled and removed, but was number tested in any laboratory to show its functioning was tempered.
In this background, the appellant filed a suit on 19.9.2002 seeking a declaration that the demand numberice dated 5.7.2002 was null and void and for refund of the sum of Rs.2,72,677/ deposited by him.
The earlier checking on 19.2.2002 was carried out on a companyplaint dated 18.2.2002 by appellant, about the wrong recording of companysumption by the Meter Reader resulting in Rs.6616/ being found to be refundable.
His premises was inspected by the SDOs attached to the office of Assistant Director Vigilance of UHBVNL on 4.7.2002.
On 4.7.2002, there was an inspection and MT seals were found to have been tampered.
DW.1 admitted that he was number in a position to say whether the meter was slow when it was checked on 4.7.2002.
The finding that MT seals were tampered was number proof of tampering of functioning of the meter.
The suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 17.7.2006.
Therefore the assumption that there was theft of electricity for six months preceding the date of inspection 4.7.2002 was number companyrect.
The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Kaithal by judgment and decree dated 11.4.2007.
The respondents examined the two inspecting officers as DW.1 and DW.2 and relied upon the checking report Ex.
There was numberaverment or proof that the functioning of the meter was tampered.
The appellant therefore deposited the said amount, under protest on 6.7.2002 and filed an appeal before the Superintending Engineer against the demand numberice.
The entire episode was intended to teach a lesson to appellant, because he dared to give a companyplaint against Meter Reader.
The appellant was required to deposit the entire amount to avoid disconnection to secure restoration of supply.
On these and other findings, the appellate Court held that the demand for Rs.2,72,677/ was number legal or justified and set aside the imposition.
The suit was companytested by the respondents.
The appellant had examined himself as PW.2 and had examined a clerk of UHBVNL first defendant as PW.1 and marked Ex.
The said judgment is challenged in this appeal by special leave.
As a companysequence, the Meter Reader was transferred.
Heard learned companynsel for the appellant.
D.1 and the demand numberice Ex.
Leave granted.
The respondents, though served, has remained unrepresented.
P.1 to P.25.
The appellant runs a hospital at Kaithal and is a companysumer of electricity.
No action was taken on the said appeal.
