Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. No order as to cost.

6. One copy of this judgment be kept in Special Civil Suit No.51 of 2002.

7. Decree to be drawn accordingly."

3. The relevant findings recorded by the court below are noted hereunder;

"28. Now, looking to the said evidence, it appears that the plaintiff company is a registered company and there is no dispute between the parties regarding this. The plaintiff has produced registration certificate of the company at Ex.113. Moreover, the company has authorized Naranbhai Jadavbhai Babiya to contest the suit on behalf of the plaintiff company and resolution to that effect is produced at Ex.114. Moreover, there is no dispute between the parties regarding the location of the factory of the plaintiff factory at village Veraval of Tal. Kotdasangani and the plaintiff company is engaged in the business of making engineering goods, liner, blocks, valve etc. Moreover, there is no dispute between the parties that the defendant PGVCL has given 250 K.V.A HT electrical connection bearing No.25856 to the plaintiff connection. Moreover, it is also undisputed fact between the parties that the officers of the defendant have checked the electrical installation of the plaintiff company on dated 22.12.2000. Now, looking to the plaint of the plaintiff company, it appears that the officers of the defendant have come to check the electrical installation of the plaintiff company on dated 22.12.2000. The allegation is made in the plaint that the officers of the defendant have tampered with the electrical installation of the plaintiff and prepared checking report. Moreover, the officers of the defendant have broken the seal on the MMB and made internal checking by applying accue check meter and thereby made checking. The plaintiff has also stated the said fact in his affidavit. The said checking report is produced at Ex.75. As per the say of the plaintiff, in absence of the representative of the plaintiff, the officers of the defendant have tampered with the electrical installation of the plaintiff and thereby prepared power theft case. Looking to the checking report produced in the suit, it appears that the said checking report was prepared in the factory of the plaintiff on 22.12.2000 in presence of plaintiff. Looking to the said checking report, it appears that consumption of the plaintiff was checked by applying accue check meter. Moreover, during the checking of meter of the plaintiff, seal of TTB was broken and removed and by connecting it in the accuse check meter, meter was checked. Moreover, one white colored seal of Maruti brand was found on terminal cover of CTPT which seal wire was found in broken condition and the said broken seal wire was also shown to the plaintiff. It was easily removed because of broken terminal cover seal and broken seal wire and thereafter, the cap of the CTPT terminal which was only fitted with the bolt and head of fifth bolt was found broken and therefore, three bolts from it were removed which were easily removed. Nuts of bolt of back side fitting which was generally used to fit the terminal cover was not in existence. Moreover, PT wire on the C terminal was not found properly fitted and the nut which is being used to fit the wire was also found in loose condition. Further, extra illegal thin copper wire was found alongwith CT wire over 2S1 terminal. Moreover, thin pieces of copper wire were found inside the terminal box which are matched with the illegal copper wire applied on the 2S1 terminal. All these facts were shown to plaintiff Naranbhai Jadavbhai. If we refer the cross examination of the plaintiff, it appears that the plaintiff has admitted that joint inspection report, inspection report, HT installation and the sealing procedure was checked and prepared in his presence and the plaintiff has signed all these reports with objection. But he has not realized any objection that laboratory testing was made in his absence. Moreover, joint inspection report of laboratory produced at Ex.82 was also prepared in the presence of the plaintiff. Moreover, the paper seal affixed on the CTPT unit which was seized from the factory of the plaintiff was also opened in the presence of plaintiff during the courses of laboratory testing. During the course of laboratory testing, CTPT unit was also found tampered with and on the basis of it, power theft bill was issued. The plaintiff has also raised objections against the laboratory testing which was also explained by the defendant in writing. Thereafter, the plaintiff has challenged the said power theft bill before the appellate committee. The report of the appellate committee is produced at Ex.89. In which, it was found that the CTPT TC seal wire was found broken and the CTPT and terminal cover were opened. Further, an additional thin copper wire was also found rounded on 2S1 terminal stud and other small parts of copper wire were found in the CTPT terminal cover. Further, the C-stud of the CTPT unit was found loose and thereby the load was shorten than the actual one. Thus, the plaintiff has applied the external devise and committed mal-practice and committed theft of power energy. The appellate committee has also considered the factor M, chargeable hours, shift factor and then revised the bill of the plaintiff company. Thereafter, the appellate committee has reduced the bill of the plaintiff to the extent of Rs.7,50,488. 90 ps. The learned advocate of the plaintiff has argued that without giving any finding, the appellate committee has reduced the bill amount. But if we peruse the order of the appellate committee produced at Ex.89, it appears that the appellate committee has discussed all the documents and subsequently passed the order. Therefore, the said argument of the plaintiff is not tenable. Moreover, the plaintiff was also informed to pay the said bill, but the plaintiff has given objections against the said bill and thereby not paid the bill in question.