IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes the legal principle that disputes related to the correctness of meters and fraud in tampering with meters fall under the provisions of the Electricity Act, and the court's jurisdiction is determined by the evidence and findings of fact.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present First Appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, hereinafter referred to as `the Code’). Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18.4.2009 passed by the learned Principle Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar in Special Civil Suit No.74 of 2004 and directing the appellant – original defendant to pay to the respondent original plaintiff Rs.15,21,800/- with running interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from 27.4.2004 till realization.

2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Lilu Bhaya for the defendant - appellant. Though served, none appeared for the respondent/s – original plaintiffs.

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:

4. The plaintiff has filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.15,21,800/- with running interest @ 7.5% p.a. from 27.4.2004 till realisation against defendants. The plaintiff is running a hotel in the name of `Hotel Arjun’ at Moti Khavdi, Village Sikka Taluka Jamnagar and having a Customer No.82102–00725-1 of GEB. The electric meter was installed on 19/1/1999, form No.15 was filled up and at that time, the terminal block was burned. A checking squad from Mehsana Division of the appellants visited the Hotel premises of respondents on 27/6/2003 and carried out the checking. It was found that the meter which was installed at the plaintiff’s Hotel was running 36.48% slow. The said meter was sent on for laboratory testing. It was found that the PT link of wire and pressure coil of the meter were found tampered with on the upper portion of the screws instead of lower portion of the screws and PT wire was found broken near the link. It was reported that it was a case of theft of electricity, resultantly supplementary bill of Rs.52,91,728=24 Paisa was issued to the present respondent. The said supplementary bill was challenged before the Appellate Committee of the appellant. The Appellate Committee revised the supplementary bill and a revised supplementary bill for an amount of Rs.13,40,391=23 Paisa was raised against which the respondent filed a Special Civil Suit for cancellation of the said supplementary bill. Pending suit, pursuant to the application for re- connection of the Electric Supply vide Exh.14, the order to restore the connection, on a condition to deposit the entire amount of revised supplementary bill was passed. Plaintiff deposited an amount of Rs.15,21,800/- with the appellant and the Electric Supply was restored.

5. The appellant appeared and filed Written Statement vide Exh.10 and contended that at the time of checking of installation as well as at the time of checking of the meter in laboratory, the position of burnt terminal block was not found and meter seals were found to be tampered with. It was also found that the pressure coil was also tampered with. As the meter was tampered with, supplementary Bill was issued. It was also found at the time of checking by the Squad on 27.6.2003 that illegal load of Electricity was found of 111.66 HP and it was also found that the meter was running 36.48% slow seal wires were replaced and seals were sticked by adhesive object. Body seals were tampered with and seals were found duplicate. Even the terminal block was found tampered with by way of touching screw.

6. Issues were framed at Exh.23 which are reproduced hereunder:

(i) Whether the plaintiff proves that the terminal block was in burned position and defective right from the beginning at the time of installation of meter by the defendant ?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff proves that the Supplementary suit bill is against the Rules, Arbitrary and Illegal ?

(iii) Whether the defendants prove that the factum of burned position of terminal block has no connection with theft of electricity ?

(iv) Whether defendants prove that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit against the order of the Appellate Authority of GEB ?

(v) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled to get refund of Rs.15,21,800/- which is deposited by him on dated 2