S C JINDAL Vs. UHBVNL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents, though served, has remained unrepresented. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

(2.) The appellant runs a hospital at Kaithal and is a consumer of electricity. His premises was inspected by the SDOs attached to the office of Assistant Director (Vigilance) of UHBVNL on 4.7.2002. The checking report dated 4.7.2002 issued in regard to the said inspection recorded that all the M&T seals were found tampered, that is, lace wire was cut and reinserted into seal hole and pressed. The meter was removed, packed in a cardboard box, sealed and delivered to Bhawani Prasad-AFM. In pursuance of it, a penalty/backbilling notice 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. The appellant was required to deposit the entire amount to avoid disconnection/to secure restoration of supply. The appellant therefore deposited the said amount, under protest on 6.7.2002 and filed an appeal before the Superintending Engineer against the demand notice. No action was taken on the said appeal.

(3.) In this background, the appellant filed a suit on 19.9.2002 seeking a declaration that the demand notice dated 5.7.2002 was null and void and for refund of the sum of Rs.2,72,677/- deposited by him. The suit was contested 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.P.1 to P.25. The respondents examined the two inspecting officers as DW.1 and DW.2 and relied upon the checking report (Ex.D.1) and the demand notice (Ex.D.2). The suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 17.7.2006. The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Kaithal by judgment and decree dated 11.4.2007. After considering the evidence in detail, the first appellate Court recorded the following findings of fact: