Consumer cannot contest electricity supplementary bills in civil suits if not challenged in the Appellate Authority as per the rules governing electricity supply.

JUDGEMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SECOND APPEAL No. 11 of 2012 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Sd/­ =========================================

1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? YES

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO

4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? NO

5. Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO ========================================= PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD ­ Appellant(s) Versus BHIKHABHIA ARJANBHAI VARU ­ Defendant(s) ========================================= Appearance : MR DIPAK R DAVE for Appellant(s) : 1, MR DHAVAL D VYAS for Defendant(s) : 1, ========================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 03/04/2012 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.0. Present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellant­original plaintiff ­Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil 2/10 JUDGMENT Judge (J.D.), Talala dated 7.6.2003 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.34 of 2002, by which, the learned trial Court has partly decreed the said suit preferred by the appellant­original plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs.30560.66 under the supplementary bill as well as impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court has passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 04 of 2004, by which the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant­original plaintiff and has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit.

2.0. That on the basis of the inspection by checking squad of the appellant Electricity Company having found that the respondent herein ­original defendant had used the electricity illegally by getting the illegal connection, a supplementary bill for electricity theft of Rs.30,560.66 was issued upon the respondent herein­ original defendant. That as the respondent herein did not make the payment under the supplementary bill, the appellant herein ­original plaintiff instituted Special Civil Suit No.92 of 1992 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Veraval for recovery of aforesaid amount of Rs.30,560.66. However, in view of change in the jurisdiction the case was transferred to learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Talala, which was renumbered as Regular Civil Suit No.34 of 2002. That the learned trial Court by judgment and decree dated 7.6.2003 partly allowed the suit to the extent of Rs.745.38 only by holding that the respondent­defendant consumer had used the electricity illegally only for four days and the supplementary bill has been prepared on the basis of the last six months consumption and consequently held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of 3/10 JUDGMENT Rs.745.38 only. 2.1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in passing the decree for an amount of Rs.745.38 only and in not decreeing the suit as a whole, the appellant herein ­original plaintiff preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.4 of 2004 before the District Court, Junagadh and the learned Additional District Judge, Veraval by impugned judgment and order dated 21.10.2011 has dismissed the said appeal confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court.

2.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by both the Courts below, the appellant herein­original plaintiff has preferred Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3.0. Shri Dave, learned advo