TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. M. VEERAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.190 of 2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Karur, is the appellant in this second appeal. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant/respondent herein namely., M.Veerappan had taken the suit electricity connection on 12.01.2001. On 28.07.2003, the Anti-Theft Squad of TNEB detected energy theft from the said connection. The respondent was called upon to show cause vide Ex.A.3 dated 29.07.2003. It was made clear that the respondent will be levied with assessment charges for the energy theft committed by him, if his explanation was not found satisfactory.

(2.) The respondent is said to have given his explanation dated 11.08.2003. Not satisfied with the same, Ex.A.4/assessment order dated 20.08.2003 was passed and the extra levy payable by the respondent was quantified at Rs. 1,79,786/-. The respondent was called upon to pay the same in ten installments of Rs. 17,979/-. A detailed worksheet was also enclosed along with Ex.A.4/assessment order. Thereafter, several communications were issued to the respondent calling upon him to pay the levied amount. Exs.A6 and A7 are the demands issued by the plaintiff. Exs.A.8, A.9 and A. 10 are the acknowledgement cards signed by the defendant. Since the assessed amount was not paid by the defendant, the aforesaid suit came to be filed. The respondent filed his written statement denying the suit claim. The learned Trial Judge framed the issue as to whether the defendant was obliged to pay the suit claim. On the side of the plaintiff, an assistant engineer by name Jegatheesan was examined as P.W.I and Exs.A.1 to A. 10 were marked. The defendant examined himself as D.W.I and no documentary evidence was marked on the side of the defendant. The learned Trial Judge by judgment and decree dated 21.02.2008 decreed the suit as prayed for.

(3.) Questioning the same, the defendant filed A.S.No.61 of 2008 before the District Court, Karur. The first appellate court by judgment and decree dated 20.07.2010 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Challenging the same, this second appeal came to be filed.