The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases where damages are claimed, the plaintiff must provide evidence and documentation to substantiate the claimed loss. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of the suit.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant in the suit impugning the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 27.04.2006 by which the trial court has decreed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for the sum of Rs. 7,98,000/- for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the judgment till recovery. The claim of the respondent/plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 7,98,000/- was broken up in the plaint as under:-

(i)	Compensation for rent paid for the period about six weeks @ Rs. 12,054/- per month for the rent paid without electricity.	Rs. 18,000/-
(ii)	Loss of business on the occasion of Diwali & Gurpurav during the relevant period.	Rs. 50,000/-
(iii)	Litigation expenses in two suits, appeal and LPA	Rs. 25,000/-
(iv)	Loss of reputation humiliation in the business community general and market in particular.	Rs. 4,00,000/-
(v)	Mental torture	Rs. 3,00,000/-
(vi)	Notice fee	Rs. 5,000/-

2. The appellant/defendant contested the suit and denied the claim of the respondent/ plaintiff. It was pleaded that the respondent/plaintiff was in default of payment of licence fee and in fact proceedings for eviction were going on. The suit was thus prayed to be dismissed.

3. Trial court framed the following issues:

“(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of the said amount as prayed? OPP

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the amount of damages, as claimed? OPP”

4. Trial court has dismissed the suit for all claims except decreeing the claim of loss caused of Rs. 50,000/- to the business on account of electricity been illegally disconnected for a period of 12 days from 8.11.2000 to 20.11.2000. Trial court has held that the appellant/ defendant was not justified in disconnecting the electricity for the Claim of Rs. 2,81,844.50/- in as much as how this figure was arrived at, was not proved by the appellant/ defendant. In fact the trial court notes that as per the case of the respondent/plaintiff only a sum of Rs. 8,434/- was due from the respondent/plaintiff to the appellant/defendant. Trial court though has held that the respondent/plaintiff failed to prove the loss suffered by him on account of disconnection of electricity, however, the trial court has held that since the electricity was disconnected for 12 days during festival time, therefore damages of Rs. 50,000/- was awarded for the loss of business suffered on account of illegal disconnection of electricity and mental agony and harassment to the respondent/plaintiff. The relevant discussion of the trial court in this regard is contained in the following paragraphs of the impugned judgment:-

“The defendant had not filed on record any demand notice raised by them and despite having appeared in the witness box, they have failed to show how they have claimed a sum of Rs. 2,81,844.50/- from the plaintiff. To sum up the things, the defendant had only taken a cryptic stand in the WS and the witness produced by it was also vague in answering to the questions put to him in the cross-examination. Besides, he was unable to give any details of the amount due from the plaintiff. It is an admitted fact that the defendant had disconnected the electricity supply of the plaintiff and after going through the evidence, it can be said that the defendant has failed to show that the electricity supply had been disconnected for any justifiable reason. More so in the light of the fact that there were so many letters written by the plaintiff continuously to the defendant to settle the accounts, but, instead of clarifying its decision, the defendant arbitrarily disconnected the electricity supply to the shop of the plaintiff. The plain