M.P.E.B., UJJAIN Vs. SATYANARAYAN PUSKARLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 11.04.1987 passed in Civil Suit No. 13 -A/83 by Fourth Additional District Judge Ujjain thereby decreed the suit of the respondent directing the appellant/defendant to refund the amount of Rs. 7,323/ - and directing the appellant not to disconnect the electric connection No. 5616 of the respondent/plaintiff.

(2.) THE case in short is that the employees of the appellant original defendant added Rs. 21,636.56 paise in the bill for the month of June, 1982 and asked the respondent/plaintiff to pay the same. Since the factory of the plaintiff, being seasonal, was closed from July, 1982 to January, 1983 and the plaintiff wanted to start the factory in February, 1983. In absence of the plaintiff, the appellant/defendant employees disconnected the electric supply on 1.2.1983. On asking for reconnecting the same the appellants told him to deposit Rs. 21,636.56 paise or atleast 1/3 thereof for reconnection. The plaintiff, therefore, deposited Rs. 7,300/ - under protest and for testing the meter deposited Rs. 23/ -. Again with the bill of February 1983 an amount of Rs. 14,801.51 paise was shown to be outstanding and threatened the plaintiff that if that amount is not paid by 26.3.1983, the electric current will be disconnected. The meter was to be tested by the electrical Inspector and the responsibility for that was of the defendant/appellant but the defendant/appellant did not get the meter tested and appropriate Rs. 7,323/ -, therefore, the present suit was filed.

(3.) THE lower Court held that appellant had not got any enquiry made by the Electrical Inspector as per the provisions, though it is admitted by the witness of the appellant that the meter was defective then the subsequent drop or hike in the new meter cannot be expected to be given correct reading. There was no other possible means to assess the previous and current readings of the plaintiff's consumption. In such a way the only conclusion that the lower Court has reached was possibly that the recovery whichever made under compulsion for reconnection had to be refunded to the plaintiff. In that view of the matter, I concur with the findings and ultimate decree of the trial Court and confirm the same.