JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED Vs. PARSHOTTAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellants-defendants (for short 'the defendants') against the judgment and decree dtd. 21/10/2014 passed by Additional District Judge, Badi (for short 'the first appellate Court') in civil appeal No. 14/2013, by which the first appellate Court while allowing the appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff'), directed the defendants not to recover the amount of Rs.20,210.00 from the plaintiff and not to discontinue the electricity connection of the plaintiff on the basis of amount in question, set aside the judgment and decree dtd. 16/3/2011 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Badi, Dholpur (for short 'the trial Court') in civil suit No. 12/2005 by which the trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for mandatory and permanent injunction.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit for mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendants mentioning therein that he had obtained a 25-HP electricity connection from the defendants in the town of Saramthura, having account number 0058. The plaintiff's meter was neither damaged nor remained unfunctional and the defendants never got it checked in the laboratory. The seal of the meter was intact. He never committed any kind of electricity theft and was paying the amount of the electricity bills regularly based on the meter readings. No amount was due prior to January 2002. From January 2002 to November 2004 the plaintiff did not owe a single penny towards consumption charges. However, in the bill for the month of January 2005, an additional amount of Rs.20,210.00 was added to the consumption charges, which is incorrect. On account of non deposition of the aforesaid charges of Rs.20,210.00, the defendants want to disconnect the electricity connection, whereas on 27/1/2005, the plaintiff deposited the billing amount of Rs.7,609.00 towards the consumption charges. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff be decreed.

(3.) The defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that a bill of Rs.20,210.00was correctly sent to the plaintiff. The meter of the plaintiff was not functional and replaced twice. After taking the average reading of the new meter and after deducting the amount already deposited by the plaintiff, bill of Rs.20,210.00 was raised. The action of the defendants was based upon Rule 19 (C) and (D) of the General Conditions of Supply Rules 1964 (for short the Rules of 1964'). Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed.