BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd v. Vinod Rajput

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No

2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. Oral *

1. By this appeal filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the appellant seeks to set aside the 2011:DHC:2892 judgment and decree dated 08.11.2005, whereby the suit filed by the respondent herein for declaration and perpetual injunction was decreed in favour of the respondent and against the appellant herein.

2. Facts shorn of unnecessary details relevant for deciding the present appeal are that on 11.4.98, an inspection was carried out by the appellant on the premises of the respondent, shown to be C-90, Panchsheel Vihar, Khirki, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, whereupon it was found that the respondent was indulging in direct theft of electricity and a bill of Rs. 5,07,925.56 was raised against the respondent. That the appellant conducted another inspection on 24.2.1999 on the premises of the respondent, which was bearing number C-89 A Khirki, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, where again the respondent was found indulging in direct theft of electricity and a bill of Rs. 3,86,379 was raised against the respondent. Consequently, the respondent filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction challenging the second theft bill which vide judgment and decree dated 8.11.2005 was decreed in favour of the respondent and against the appellant. Feeling aggrieved with the same, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

3. During the course of arguments, drawing attention of this Court to the Inspection Report dated 24.02.1999, counsel for the respondent submits that based on the said inspection report placed on record, the petitioner had raised the electricity bill for a sum of Rs.5,07,925.56 towards the penalty for theft of the electricity and mis-user of the same. Counsel further submits that in the said inspection report, nowhere it has been stated that which premises were inspected by the inspecting team constituted by the Delhi Vidyut Board. Counsel also submits that the respondent was never the owner of M/s.Neptune India Pvt. Ltd. and in fact it was proved before the learned trial court that one Mr.Deepak Kapur was one of the Directors of the said company. Counsel further submits that Mr.Vinod Rajput, against whom the said bill was raised, was nowhere connected with the premises bearing No.C-90, Panchsheel Vihar, Khirki Extension, New Delhi. Counsel also submits that the respondent had applied for the electricity connection only in respect of the premises bearing No.C-89A, Panchsheel Vihar and not in respect of the premises bearing No.C-90, Panchsheel Vihar.

4. Counsel for the appellant, on the other hand, submits that the premises bearing No.C-90 and C-89A are in fact the same premises and at the time of the first inspection carried out by the inspecting team of the petitioner on 11.04.1998, the electricity was found to be misused by M/s.Neptune India Pvt. Ltd. and at that time the premises number was shown as C-90 and an electricity bill for direct theft of electricity for a sum of Rs.5,07,925.56 was raised by the appellant against the respondent. Counsel further submits that the respondent had filed a suit against the appellant seeking declaration to challenge the said electricity theft bill and the same is still pending consideration before the civil court. Counsel further submits that another raid was conducted by the joint inspecting team of the then Delhi Vidyut Board on 24.02.1999 and then again M/s.Neptune India Pvt. Ltd. was found misusing the electricity and a fresh theft bill for a sum of Rs.3,86,379/- was raised by the appellant against the said company. Counsel further submits that this time with a view to defraud the appellant, the respondent had changed the premises number from C-90 to C-89A.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. The main grievance of the appellant in the present appeal is that the respondent has been inter changing the number of his premises from C-89 A to C-90 with a view to deceive the appellant. A perusal of the inspection report dated 24.2.1999 would itself show that no premises number has been mentioned. In the event of no evidence and proof produced by the appellant to show that the said premises was bearing number C 89A and was earlier C 90, the respondent is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Even otherwise, the learned trial court in the impugned judgment has clearly stated that in view of the unchallenged testimony of the respondent/plaintiff and the discrepant and uncorroborated statements made by the three witnesses adduced by the appellant, it became difficult to come to the conclusion that it was the premises bearing No.C-89A belonging to the respondent/plaintiff where the inspection was carried out by the said joint inspecting team of the then Delhi Vidyut Board on 24.02.1999. Since the said inspection report is the only basis for raising the said theft bill and in the absence of any premises number being mentioned in the said inspection report, there was no option for the trial court but to accept the case of the respondent. In the appeal also, the said inspection report cannot be ignored although on the last date of hearing the appellant was directed to depute some senior officer to assist this Court, but no senior officer has chosen to appear to assist this Court and in such circumstances and in the absence of any explanation having come forth from the side of the appellant, I do not appreciate the contention raised by counsel for the appellant that it was Mr.Vinod Rajput who was found misusing the electricity by connecting the same with the DVB mains.

7. In the light of the aforesaid, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. The appellant, however, shall be at liberty to take appropriate action against M/s.Neptune India Pvt. Ltd. which was found misusing the electricity from the premises in question. May 23, 2011 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J dc