In a first appeal regarding an electricity bill dispute, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The appellant failed to adduce evidence to prove the correctness of the meter readings and the necessity of the additional bill charged based on average consumption after a meter damage.
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
S.B. Civil First Appeal No.117 of 1988. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jaipur and Another VERSUS Rambharosi Kedarnath, Bharatpur through Rambharosi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
J U D G M E N T
S.B. Civil First Appeal No.117 of 1988.
Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jaipur and Another
VERSUS
Rambharosi Kedarnath, Bharatpur through Rambharosi
Date of Judgment :::: March 11th 2010
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh
Mr. J.K. Singhi and
Mr. Ravindra Pal Singh, Counsel for the appellants Mr. Neeraj Joshi, on behalf of
Mr. Virendra Agarwal, Counsel for the respondent
: By the Court
This is a first appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Bharatpur dated 23.08.1988 in civil suit No.96 of 1983 by which the suit for permanent injunction and declaration filed by the plaintiff-respondent has been decreed by the learned trial Court restraining the defendant-appellant from recovering the amount from the plaintiff.
-2-
S.B. Civil First Appeal No.117 of 1988. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jaipur and Another VERSUS Rambharosi Kedarnath, Bharatpur through Rambharosi
Facts, in brief, are that the appellants have installed an electric connection in the premises of the plaintiffrespondent for 25 H.P. and not installed an electric meter for the same.
The case of the plaintiff is that up-to May 1982 all bills have been regularly paid and that there was a strike of the employees of the defendant between the period from 20th May, 1982 to 16th July, 1982 and thereafter on 26th July, 1982 there was a fire in the premises of the plaintiff on account of which the meter installed by the defendant for electricity consumption was damaged in the fire and this information was conveyed immediately to the defendant by the plaintiff on 26th July 1982 itself and thereafter the defendant in accordance with the general condition of electric supply regulations' clause 19-D (7) submitted a bill on the basis of average consumption based upon the consumption of the preceding period of three months i.e. March, April and May, 1982 for Rs.6528.60 for consumption of 5433 units, which was paid by the plaintiff on 28.08.1982. Thereafter, the plaintiffs submitted another bill on 01.09.1982 for an amount of Rs.6700.40 requiring the plaintiff to pay the said amount on or before 06.09.1982, failing which the electricity connection to the premises of the plaintiff would be disconnected.
-3-
S.B. Civil First Appeal No.117 of 1988. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jaipur and Another VERSUS Rambharosi Kedarnath, Bharatpur through Rambharosi
The case of the plaintiff was that on 02.09.1982 the plaintiff approached the defendants apprising them that the bill based upon the average consumption of the previous three months, as raised by the defendants had been paid by the plaintiff and, therefore, the bill raised on 01.09.1982 for an additional amount of Rs.6700.40 should be revoked.
The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant did not accept the aforesaid contention of the plaintiff and instead threatened disconnection of the electricity connection, if the bill was not paid and that prompted the plaintiff to file the present suit.
The defendants after service filed their writtenstatements stating therein that after examining the meter in the presence of the representative of the plaintiff (son of the plaintiff) it was found that the meter reading shows reading of 82260 units and on the previous reading being in the month of May of as 49230. The defendants have raised the bill for the total units of 33050 for Rs.13299 being the consumption based upon the difference of the two and since the plaintiff had deposited an amount of Rs.6528.60 after giving the credit of the aforesaid amount the plaintiff was required to deposit the balance amount of Rs.6700.40.
On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the learned
-4-
S.B. Civil First Appeal No.117 of 1988. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jaipur and Another VERSUS Rambharosi Kedarnath, Bharatpur through Rambharosi
trial Court framed the following issues :
जो �बल वाद� को 6528.60 �पये का भेजा गया वह माह ई, जून, जुलाई 1982 के �वधुत उपभोग का एवरेज चाज� नो�टस पर अःथाई दर से भेजा गया था ?
Before the learned trial Court only the plaintiff entered the witness-box and the defendants did not lead any evidence, as would be evident from Para 4 of the judgment, wherein it has been recorded by the learned trial Court as follows :
वाद� ने अपने सबूत म� पी.ङ 1 राम भरोसी लाल ःवयं को पेश �कया है।ूितवाद�गण क� ओर से कोई साआय पेश नह�ं हईु है..............
The learned trial Court decided Issues No.1 and 2
together.
As has been noticed above, Issue No.1 was
-5-
S.B. Civil First Appeal No.117 of 1988. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jaipur and Another VERSUS Rambharosi Kedarnath, Bharatpur through Rambharosi
whether the defendants in their bills for the month of August 1982 for Rs.6528.60 had taken an average consumption for the months of May, June and July, 1982 and raised the said bill on the basis of the average charges.
As would be seen from the judgment of the learned trial Court the burden of the aforesaid issues was on the defendant.
Issue No.2 was based upon the pleadings of the defendant in Para 6 of the written-statement, wherein the defendant had specifically averred as follows :
'' यह �क मद नं.6 �जस ूकार बयान क� गयी है ःवीकार नह�ं है दर असल जो �बल अगःत सन ् 1982 म� 6528.60 पैसे का वाद� को भेजा गया था वह अःथाई �प से भेजा गया था �य��क उस समय तक पूरा �हसाब वाद� के उपभोग का नह�ं लग सका था इसी कारण �बल म� यह अं�कत भी �कया हआ था �क भूल चूक लेनी देनीु, वाद म� वाद� का जब मीटर �दनांक 29/7/82 को उतारा गया तो उससे ू दिश�त मीटर र��डंग 82280 थी इस वजह से उसके आधार पर वाद� को �दनांक 1/9/82 को पूरक �बल 6700.40 पैसे का भेजा गया था मई 1982 तक वाद� का उपभोग 49230 यूिनट था तथा 30/7/82 को जो मीटर उतर कर आया उसम� 82280 यूिनट का उपभोग �दखलाया हआ था इस कारण मई माह तक केु यूिनट� के मुजरा करने के बाद मीटर र��डंग के अनुसार शेष यूिनट 33050 बकाया रहे, �जसक� रकम 13299 �पये बन सकती थी �क �जसम� से 6528.60 पैसा मुजरा करने के वाद वाद� क� और बकाया रकम 6700/- �पया 40 पैसे बची �क �जसका पूरक �बल उसे भेजा गया था �क �जसे अदा करने क� पूर� �ज�मेदार� वाद� क� है।''
-6-
S.B. Civil First Appeal No.117 of 1988. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jaipur and Another VERSUS Rambharosi Kedarnath, Bharatpur through Rambharosi
Looking to the above plea and the Issue No.2 , which had been framed the burden was rightly placed by the learned trial Court on the defendant.
As has been stated here-in-above, the defendantappellant did not enter the witness-box nor did the defendant lead any evidence in support of aforesaid plea raised in Para No.6 of the written-statement based upon which the Issue No.2 had been framed.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that even though the defendants had not entered the witness-box, there was Exhibit A-1 on record and the plaintiff himself did not dispute the contents of Exhibit A-1.
In this behalf, he has referred to the following part of the statement in cross-examination of PW-1 Rambharosi, the plaintiff.
''मीटर चे�ज order Ex A1 पर A to B भाग म� हःता�र मेरे नह�ं है और न म� पहचान सकता हं �क �कसके ह�। आज खुदू कहा �क मेरे �कसी लड़के के हो सकते ह�। मीटर दसरा ू29 या 30 को ह� लग गया था। यह हो सकता है �क दसरा मीटर भीू बाद म� जल गया हो और तीसरा मीटर लगा हो । Ex A2 पर A to B भाग म� मेरे हःता�र है। EX A2 तीसरा मीटर बदलने का M.C.O हो तो मुझे पता नह�ं। जलने से पूव� व जलने के बाद मीटर र�डर हर माह र��डंग लेने आता है।''
From the above, the learned counsel for the appellant sought to content that the plaintiff had not disputed
-7-
S.B. Civil First Appeal No.117 of 1988. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jaipur and Another VERSUS Rambharosi Kedarnath, Bharatpur through Rambharosi
the facts and contents of Exhibit A-1, Meter Change Order, wherein it was found that the reading in the meter was 82280 units.
So far as the above contention is concerned, suffice it to say that in the present case the defendants had not discharged their burden by entering the witness-box and proving the contents of Exhibit A-1. The plaintiff in the above statement has not admitted the contents of Exhibit A-1.
Thus, the initial burden had to be discharged by the defendant regarding the contents of Exhibit A-1 meter change order and to prove that in fact at the time of removal of the said meter by the defendants the reading was as has been incorporated in the aforesaid meter change order and the said meter was removed and the reading was taken in the presence of the plaintiff's representatives or the plaintiff himself and the signatures on the same are of the plaintiff or of any of his authorized representatives. In the absence of any such evidence having been led by the defendants in support of their plea raised in Para No.6 of the written-statement on which issue No.2 was framed has not been discharged and the issue was rightly decided against the defendant-appellant.
In the light of the above, there is no force in the present appeal filed by the defendants.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-8-
S.B. Civil First Appeal No.117 of 1988. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jaipur and Another VERSUS Rambharosi Kedarnath, Bharatpur through Rambharosi
In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no
order as to costs.
(Dalip Singh), J.
Ashok/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant discharged the burden of proving the meter readings and the basis of the additional bill despite failing to adduce witness testimony.
Whether the trial Court correctly dismissed the appeal on account of the appellant's failure to lead evidence in support of their pleaded case.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jaipur and Another
Rambharosi Kedarnath, Bharatpur through Rambharosi
Dalip Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
