ASSISTANT ENGINEER Vs. KANNAN CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by allowing of Appeal reversing the Judgment of the trial court in respect of Service Connection No.395, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has preferred this Appeal. For convenience, the parties are referred as per their array in the Original Suit.

(2.) PLAINTIFF is the consumer of electricity for his house bearing Door No.69, Subburoya Chetty street, Cuddalore-2 and the service connection number is 394. The next house on the eastern side is Door No.70 which also belongs to the PLAINTIFF for which the service connection is 395. On 23.09.1988, Anti Power Theft Squad, Villupuram had inspected the houses of the PLAINTIFF and had noticed certain violations, regarding which notice dated 21.01.1989 was sent to the PLAINTIFF. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has sent two provisional assessment notices on 21.01.1989 demanding the PLAINTIFF to pay a sum of Rs.2798/ for service connection No. 394 and a sum of Rs.1190/- for service connection No.395. Alleging that false allegations have been made in the report by the Officers of Defendant's Board and denying the violation of rules or misuse of service connections, the PLAINTIFF has filed the suit O.S. No.113 of 1989 for declaration that the demand in letter No.AEE/T/S/C Ud/C1/FAPTS/D695 dated 21.1.89 is illegal, arbitrary, void and unenforceable and for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their men, servants and agents from disconnecting the service connection Nos. 394 and 395.

(3.) AS against the findings in respect of service connection No.394, the Defendant's Board has not preferred any appeal. Insofar as, service connection No.395, consumer has preferred an appeal challenging the findings of the trial court in respect of service connection No.395. The lower Appellate Court held that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board can only take criminal action and cannot levy penal charges. Observing that the Plaintiff had already paid the metre reading charges and there was no necessity to pay further charges, the lower Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial court in respect of service connection No.395.