LAWS(MAD)-2005-4-247

DEMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATIONA ALAGAN Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP BY ITS SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER; ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE-II AND JUNIOR ENGINEER (O AND M)

Decided On April 09, 2005
Demployees State Insurance Corporationa Alagan Appellant
V/S
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rep By Its Superintending Engineer; Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation And Maintenance-Ii And Junior Engineer (O And M) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved against the judgment rendered by the Principal District Judge, Salem in A.S.No.230 of 1990 preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the District Munsif, Attur in O.S.No.195 of 1983, the plaintiff/appellant viz., Desia Alagan has filed this second appeal.

(2.) The question of law raised by the appellant is to the effect that damages arrived by the Electricity Board Officials is not permitted by law and the Electricity Board officials cannot assume theft of electricity energy prior to the inspection for a period of 36 months.

(3.) The suit was filed by the plaintiff Desia Alagan against the defendants being Electricity Board officials for the relief of declaration that notice dated 25.3.1983 demanding Rs.30,377/= as illegal and ultra vires and consequential permanent injunction with the allegations that the plaintiff is having electric pumpset service connection No.321 at the field bearing S.No.70/3 at Appamma Samudram village and the same stands in the name of the plaintiff's grandfather Muthusamy Gounder and that after the oral partition and consequent muchalika between the plaintiff and his father, Rangasamy Gounder in the year 1982, the plaintiff has become the owner of the said service connection and that out of malice, defendants 1 to 3 disconnected the service connection in the year 1979 and however, the plaintiff's father managed to get re-connection after great difficulty and that now, the second defendant issued a notice to the father of the plaintiff once again for the alleged irregularities done in the year 1979 calling for payment of nearly Rs.30,377/= under the threat of disconnection if the amount is not paid within 15 days and that further, the plaintiff is not at all liable to any dues prior to the partition and that the defendants want to harass the plaintiff and make him liable for what he is not liable and that particularly, the plaintiff cannot be held liable for the criminal act done by his father. That is why the plaintiff happened to file the suit.