LAWS(DLH)-2019-7-277

BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

Decided On July 24, 2019
BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD Appellant
V/S
ASHOK KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 assails the judgment and order dated 26.08.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Central, Delhi in Suit No.74/06 whereunder the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff was decreed. The suit assailed the inspection report dated 26.05.2006 as also the speaking order dated 22.06.2006 passed by the appellant, holding the respondent guilty of dishonest abstraction of energy (DAE), and the consequential bill of Rs.8,32,422/- and sought that the same be declared as inoperative. The respondent further sought that the appellant be restrained from disconnecting the electricity supply to his premises on the ground of non-payment of the impugned bill.

(2.) The brief facts as emerged from the record may be noted at the outset. The respondent, who is the proprietor of M/s. Apollo Rolling Shutter Engg. Works, has been carrying out business at B-17D, Gali No.9, New Rohtak Road, Anand Parbat, Delhi and obtained an electricity connection, being K.No 11410B120014, from the appellant for the said premises.

(3.) On 18.05.2006, due to a short circuit, the electricity meter installed at the respondent's premises got burnt and on a written complaint made by him, the appellant replaced the said meter. Subsequently, the appellant raised demand note of Rs.4,650/- towards the said replacement which amount was duly paid by the respondent. On 22.05.2006, some officials of the appellant/BSES conducted an inspection at the premises of the respondent which was followed by another inspection on 26.05.2006, during which, as per the respondent, nothing amiss was found. Consequently, a new meter was installed at the respondent's premises on 26.05.2006. After the said replacement, the appellant conducted an inspection of the removed meter to detect any anomalies therein and an on-site inspection report thereto, along with the accompanying observations, was prepared which the respondent refused to sign. The observations in the on-site inspection report dated 26.05.2006 read as under: