Case Note & Summary
The appellant, original defendant, was a consumer of electricity supplied by the respondent, Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. On 06.02.2002, an electric squad visited the defendant's quarry and found that electricity was being extracted illegally by direct hooking from the Low Tension (LT) line. A notice dated 13.03.2002 was issued to the defendant demanding payment of Rs.6,22,167.98 towards consumption of power illegally, along with delayed payment charges and notice expenses. A supplementary bill was also issued. The plaintiff filed Special Suit No.82 of 2002 for recovery of Rs.6,72,014.98. The trial court decreed the suit. The defendant appealed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court heard both sides. The court noted that the plaintiff's witnesses admitted that the defendant was not present at the time of inspection and that the theft was by direct hooking, which could have been done by any person. The court held that the burden of proof was on the plaintiff to show that the defendant was responsible for the theft. Since there was no evidence connecting the defendant to the theft, the plaintiff failed to prove its case. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court, and dismissed the suit with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Electricity Law - Theft of Electricity - Liability of Consumer - Sections 135, 138, 139, 150, 151 of Electricity Act, 2003 - The plaintiff electricity company filed a suit for recovery of dues on account of alleged theft of electricity by the defendant. The trial court decreed the suit. On appeal, the High Court held that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish that the defendant was responsible for the theft. Mere presence of a direct hooking on the defendant's premises does not automatically impute liability to the defendant, especially when the defendant was not present at the time of inspection and there was no evidence of his involvement. The court set aside the decree and dismissed the suit. (Paras 1-11) B) Civil Procedure - Appeal against Decree - Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The defendant appealed against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The High Court, exercising appellate jurisdiction, re-appreciated the evidence and found that the plaintiff failed to prove its case. The appeal was allowed and the decree was set aside. (Paras 1-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the defendant can be held liable for theft of electricity when the theft was committed by direct hooking from the LT line and there is no evidence to show that the defendant himself was involved in the theft or had authorized it.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment and decree dated 11.02.2009 passed by the learned Second Additional Senior Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate First Class, Porbandar in Special Suit No.82 of 2002 is set aside. The suit is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Burden of proof in electricity theft cases
- Liability of consumer for unauthorized use by third party
- Applicability of Indian Electricity Act
- 1910 and Electricity Act
- 2003
- Requirement of direct evidence for theft
- Presumption under Section 135 of Electricity Act
