124 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 11.02.2026 M/S VISHNU RICE MILLS AND ANR ....Appellants Versus UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD AND ANR ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present : Mr. A.K. Kansal, Advocate and Mr. Gaurav Kansal, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate for the respondents.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

Plaintiffs are in second appeal aggrieved of the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court whereby District Judge reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs.

2. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as by their original position before the Court of the First Instance, i.e., the appellants as plaintiffs and respondents as defendants.

3. Plaintiffs filed suit seeking decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants from recovering amounts pertaining to bills for the months of January, 2007 and February, 2007.

3.1. As per the case of the plaintiff, he is consumer under defendants having electricity connection No.KL-4. The energy is being consumed for running rice mill. The connection is seasonal in nature. On request by the plaintiff to the defendants, vide communication dated 29^th of September, 2006 electricity seasonal supply was restored on 5^th of October, 2006. The electricity meter installed remained under the lock and key of the defendants. Bill was raised on monthly basis. Plaintiff paid the same without any default. On 2nd of November, 2006, Connection Terminal (CT) got burnt. A new CT was purchased by the plaintiff. The same was tested by AEE, M&T Lab, UHBVNL, Rohtak on 3^rd of November, 2006. It was installed on November 4, 2006. The defendants raised demand qua consumption for the months of November, 2006 and December, 2006 on actual basis. The same was paid by the plaintiff.

4. On 17^th of January, 2007, M&P Staff, Rohtak checked the electricity meter. As per them, the meter was not recording consumption of all three phases. They accordingly, found that it was a case of unauthorized use of electricity. Consequently, a demand of Rs.1,16,826/- was raised in the bill for the month of January, 2007. Further demand of Rs.1,34,743/- was raised in the bill for the month of February, 2007. Penal amount was shown as sundry charges. Plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs.65,000/- on January 31, 2007. The defendants insisted upon depositing of the entire amount. After plaintiff failed to accede to their demand, the electricity supply was disconnected on 9th of March, 2007. Plaintiff filed a complaint No.87 of

2007 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind. The same was dismissed vide order dated 27^th of May, 2008.

5. The order was challenged by the plaintiff before State Commission. State Commission dismissed the complaint filed by the plaintiff, holding that since the connection being used for ‘commercial purpose’, the plaintiff does not fall within the ambit of ‘consumer’ as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. After the complaint was dismissed by the State Commission vide order dated 8th of August, 2011, present suit was instituted on 20^th of October, 2011.

6. Suit was contested by the defendants. On merits, the defendants justified their action claiming that it was a case of slow running of meter and thus claimed that it was theft of energy. Hence, the plaintiff was liable to pay arrears which have been demanded as sundry charges. Defendants further claimed that deposit of Rs.65,000/- by the plaintiff amounts to admission on his part of his liability and thus, he is estopped from raising issue w.r.t. merits of the case. Defendants further pleaded that jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2003 Act’).

7. Suit filed by the plaintiff was put to trial by Court of the First Instance, framing following issues:

“1. Whether the plaintiff