SRIRAMULU Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff, who succeeded before the trial court and lost before the lower Appellate Court, is the appellant. He filed suit O.S. No. 285/80 before the District Munsif, Cheyyar, for recovery of Rs. 2050/-from the respondents on the following averments. He was an agriculturist and a consumer of electricity energy under the respondent, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, his service connection being No. 53 at Poonthandalam Village. On 15-10-1976, the then North Assistant Engineer, Cheyyar, North Arcot District, inspected the meter installed in the appellant's service connection and alleged that the connection to the said service had been tampered with and the meter was therefore recording only 1/3rd of the actual consumption of energy. On an erroneous conclusion that the appellant had indulged in theft of electrical energy by tampering the meter, the service was disconnected on 16.10.1976. On the same day the then Junior Engineer and the Assistant Divisional Engineer along with some Police Officials called on the appellant and threatened him that he would face dire consequences and no reconnection of supply and service connection would be given unless he parted with Rs. 2050/- as due compensation for the theft of electrical energy as demanded by them. THE appellant got frightened and on the same day he paid Rs. 1000/- under receipt No. 214646 and the balance of Rs. 1050/- on 2-11-1976 under receipt No. 214717. THE respondents had no right to disconnect without issuing proper notice to the appellant regarding the assessed amount. Notwithstanding the absence of a notice, the plaintiff paid Rs. 2050/- as orally demanded. THE disconnection was illegal. A case was filed in C.C. No. 504/77 before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate's Court, Cheyyar, under Sections 5 and 44-C of the Indian Electricity Act. THE trial court found the appellant guilty. However, on appeal in C.A. No. 143/77 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Vellore in the then North Arcot District, the appellant was acquitted. THEreafter, the appellant caused a notice to be issued to the respondents through his Advocate on 3-2-1977 for the reconnection of supply to his service connection. THE Board neither made the final assessment of the compensation nor gave reconnection of supply of service. However, ultimately on petition to the Divisional Engineer, Cheyyar, reconnection was given to Service Connection No. 53. THE amount demanded from the appellant and received by the Board was neither due nor payable by the appellant to the Board. THE suit was therefore filed for the recovery of the amount.

(2.) THE suit was originally filed on 8.10.1979. It was returned for certain defects to be rectified. However, the papers got mixed up with the other bundles in the Office of the appellant's Counsel necessitating the appellant filing a fresh suit.

(3.) MR. R. Subramaniam, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that having found that the respondent. Board had not proved theft of electrical energy, the trial court erred in holding that the suit was barred by limitation. The criminal proceedings came to a close on 31-12-1977. The decision of the criminal court being the basis for the present suit, the suit was well within time. When the suit amount has been collected towards damages for illegal consumption of electrical energy and when the criminal court had found that there was no theft, the limitation for recovery of the amount paid as damages had to be reckoned only from the date when the final decision was given that there was no theft of energy and consequently there was no damage caused to the respondents.