CHAIRMAN TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. GOVINDASAMY NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS in O. S. No. 110 of 87 on the file of subordinate Judge, Villupuram are appellants in the above appeal. The plaintiff/respondent herein filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 63,800/-as damages together with interest. Since the learned Subordinate Judge granted a decree for damages to an extent of Rs. 25,300/- with proportionate cost, the defendants have filed the present appeal. For the disallowed claim, the plaintiff/respondent has filed Cross Appeal.

(2.) FOR convenience the parties are described as arrayed before the Court below. The case of the plaintiff is briefly stated hereunder: According to him, he is an agriculturist owning more than 25 acres of land in Siruvakkur village, Villupuram Taluk, South Arcot District. He installed a 5 H. P. Motor and pumpset in the well and the same was operated by electricity after getting permission from the Electricity Board. He was given connection to the pumpset on 26-8-1971 and his service connection number was 17. The plaintiff was regular in payment of electricity charges and strictly adhering to the Rules and Regulations framed by the Tamil Nadu electricity Board. The agreement entered into between the Tamil Nadu Electricity board and the plaintiff shows that the consumer provides for the ownership of the meter box and fuse carriers being retained with the department. The consumer cannot have any access to the same excepting in the presence of the staff of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. In August, 1977 there was a theft and the meter and fuse carrier were damaged and the door was missing. A complaint was duly lodged with the police and the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, and the Wireman was also personally informed of the mishap. Instead of trying to investigate into the matter and also repairing the damage, the fourth defendant started taking a very hostile attitude and even went to the extent of accusing the plaintiff of having tampered with the meter and also charging him with theft of electricity. Proceedings under Section 39 (44) of the Electricity Act and Section 379 I. P. C. were initiated against the plaintiff in the Court of additional Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Villupuram and the same ended in acquittal. Not being satisfied with the criminal proceedings, the defendants on 15-10-1977 disconnected the electric supply. Such action besides being unwarranted and was mala fide and beyond the powers of the Electricity Board and quite contrary to the Rules and Regulations.

(3.) THE defendants and their officers are protected under section 56 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. THE plaintiff is not entitled to maintain the suit against the Board and its officers who acted in good faith under the provisions of the Act. THE plaintiff is not entitled to claim any amount from the Board and in any event the amounts claimed in the plaint is highly excessive.