IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 22.01.2015

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI

S.A.No. 447 of 2006

And

C.M.P.No. 5626 of 2006

1.

S.Venkatachalam

2.

Palaniyandi

3.

The Superintending Engineer

Dharmapuri Electricity

Distribution Circle

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

Dharmapuri

4.

The Chairman

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

Chennai – 600 002

...Appellants/Defenants.

Vs.

P.S.Hanifa

... Respondent/Plaintiff.

PRAYER:

Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil

Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.12.2005 passed in

A.S.No. 96 of 2003 on the file of the Sub Court, Dharmapuri,

confirming the Judgement and Decree dated 27.08.2003 passed in

O.S.No. 41 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Harur.

***

For Appellants : Mr.V.Viswanathan

For Respondent : Ms.Zeenath Begaum for

Mr.T.Muruga Manickam

JUDGEMENT

The defendants 1 to 4, who are the Officials representing

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, are the appellants herein.

2. This second Appeal is arising out of the Judgment and Decree

of the Courts below in awarding compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards

mental agony caused to the plaintiff in facing the criminal trial in

C.C.No. 58 of 1998.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. Few relevant facts of the case are as follows:- The

Department initiated criminal prosecution against the plaintiff for

an act of theft of energy and the same culminated in C.C.No. 58 of

1998 and the same after due contest, ended in an order of acquittal

in favour of the accused mainly on the ground that the prosecution

failed to establish the original disconnection and unauthorised

reconnection by the consumer and unauthorised consumption

constituting an act of theft of energy by the consumer. The

Department has not admittedly preferred any appeal questioning the

correctness of the order of acquittal made in favour of the

plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit

in O.S.No. 41 of 2002 claiming compensation of Rs.25,648/- and

Rs.10,648/- for the mental agony suffered by the plaintiff in the

judicial custody and for disconnection of the electricity service

connection supplied to him.

4. The claim was seriously disputed by the defendants 1 to 4 by

denying the plea of innocence of the plaintiff. According to the

defendants, the order of acquittal will in no way absolve the

plaintiff of his liability for an act of theft of energy and the

criminal prosecution was initiated not out of malice and ill-will and

the criminal prosecution ended in acquittal only for want of evidence

and the same will not entitle the plaintiff to claim any compensation.

5. The trial Court as well as the Lower Appellate Court on the

basis of the available materials accepted the plaintiff's case

regarding the suffering undergone by him, while he was in judicial

custody and in attending the criminal proceedings on every hearing

and the mental hardship and agony undergone by him by reason of

disconnection of the electricity supply and awarded compensation of

Rs.5000/- with interest and costs. Aggrieved against the same, the

defendants/ TNEB Official filed A.S.No. 96 of 2003. The Lower

Appellate Court also on the basis of available evidence, confirmed

the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence,

this Second Appeal by the defendants before this Court.

6. The Second Appeal is admitted on the following substantial

questions of law:-

“(a) Whether the Courts below are justified in

granting decree for Rs.5000/- towards mental agony and

cost merely on the ground that the plaintiff was

acquitted in the Criminal Case registered against him

for the theft of energy?;

(b) Whether the Courts below are justified in

holding that the disconnection of power and the

inspection by the Anti Power Theft Squad was not

proper in the present