JUDGMENT :- At the first hearing on 29-11-2002 this Court has noticed the respondent that this appeal shall be decided at the admission stage since the only question which is to be decided is as to whether costs which are awarded are excessive or not.

Appeal is admitted, and by dispensing Paper Book, the appeal is heard finally by consent of parties.

2. Appellants herein who are original defendants are challenging the exemplary cost of Rs. 25,000/- levied on them to be paid to the respondents Original plaintiff) by judgment and decree dated 30-3-2001, passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khamgaon, in Special Civil Suit No. 75/1995.

3. The respondent is a proprietary concern doing the business of Oil Mill and who is a consumer of the appellant M.S.E.B. The controversy in this matter arose when the defendants issued a letter dated 19-10-1995 to the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 2,80,650.97 on the ground that defendants have issued electricity bill to the plaintiffs taking into account a wrong multiplying factor, i.e., 'I' instead of 2', for the consumption of electricity by plaintiff Oil Mill between December, 1993 to August, 1995. This discrepancy in the setting of wrong multiplying factor in the meter was found by the flying squad of the defendants and was recorded in their report dated 20-9-1995. The said squad also found that the functioning of the meter was stopped though the mill was working. Accordingly the said letter claiming difference of under-billed amount along with the fresh bill was issued to the plaintiffs. Though the disputed bill is dated 6-111995, in which the due date of payment was shown as 30-10-1995.

4. Aggrieved by the said letter dated 6-11-1995 and the disputed bill, the plaintiff lodged a protest with the defendants by letter dated 24-11-1995 in which he represented that the amount claimed by defendants under the letter dated 1910-1995 was not acceptable to him and hence the said bill was sent back for furnishing proper and corrected bill.

5. On 17-11-1995 a corrected bill along with a notice of disconnection was issued by the defendants requiring plaintiff to pay the amount of Rs. 2,80,650.97 as bill adjustment on 30-11-1995. Interestingly, the corrected bill also showed the multiplying factor as 1' instead of 2' as claimed by defendants. Plaintiffs therefore filed Suit for declaration and permanent injunction before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khamgaon challenging the letter dated 19-10-1995 as well as the Bill dated 17-11-1995. This Suit was registered as Special Civil Suit No. 75/1995. The plaintiff deposited the disputed amount with the Court, as he failed to secure order of temporary injunction and therefore sought for refund of the said amount in the said suit.

6. Learned trial Court framed three issues, and the crucial issue on which fate of the suit depended was issue No.1, which reads as follows:

"1. Does the plaintiff prove that the defendant issued incorrect bill of electricity to him?"

7. The learned trial Court found that report of the flying squad not only demonstrated regarding the wrong application of multiplying factor, but also showed the fact that at the time of spot inspection of the meter, the said meter was stopped, which was fortified by the deposition of witness, Shrikant, who happens to be brother of plaintiff. After appreciating the evidence, learned trial Court came to the conclusion that plaintiff had actually consumed the electricity energy as per the requirement though the meter was not functional. Trial Court further found that the plaintiff was not entitled to refund. Court found that plaintiff s grievance, if any was about negligence in issuance of proper bill by defendant Electricity Board, and that for any mistake in calculation of the bill, the plaintiff is not relieved from liability of payment of charges towards electricity energy consumed by him.

The reasoning of the trial Court on this point does not require further attention of this Court in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document