RSA-4539-2019 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-4539-2019 (O&M) M/s Barar Resin Corporaon ...Appellant Versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others ...Respondents Reserved on: 07.07.2026 Pronounced on: 09.07.2026 Pronounced fully/opera3ve part: Fully CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by: Mr. Jai Bhagwan Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The plaintiff has filed the present Regular Second Appeal assailing the concurrent judgments and decrees dated 23.01.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad and dated 07.02.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, whereby the suit for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction challenging electricity bill dated 17.02.2016 has been dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, the appellant-plaintiff is consumer of LT Industrial electricity connection bearing Account No.448449000. The grievance of the plaintiff is against electricity bill dated 17.02.2016, whereby ₹ an amount of 5,83,189/- was demanded, including sundry charges of ₹4,54,845/- on account of alleged loss of revenue. According to the plaintiff, the demand was illegal as no notice or opportunity of hearing had been afforded before raising the assessment. It was also pleaded that the meter had never been periodically checked in accordance with departmental YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.09 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4539-2019 (O&M) [2] regulations and, therefore, any deficiency on the part of the department could not be fastened upon the consumer. 3. The respondents contested the suit by pleading that during inspection conducted on 28.12.2015 by the M&P Wing, the meter was found recording zero voltage on one PT phase while all three phases were in use. The PT wire inside the CT chamber had broken/burnt, resulting in the meter recording consumption one-third less and thereby causing loss of revenue. It was further pleaded that notices were issued to the plaintiff before incorporating the assessed amount as sundry charges and, despite opportunity, no objection was submitted. 4. Upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff also met the same fate. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate that the assessment stood vitiated for want of compliance with the principles of natural justice. It is further argued that the departmental circular mandating issuance of notice before raising short assessment has been ignored. Learned counsel has also argued that the checking report and bills pertained to "Barar Rebhoo" and not to the appellant-firm "Barar Resin Corporation", thereby rendering the entire assessment illegal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have carefully perused the record. 7. The entire controversy revolves around appreciation of evidence. Both the Courts below have concurrently returned findings that the YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.09 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4539-2019 (O&M) [3] inspection dated 28.12.2015 was conducted in the presence of the representative of the plaintiff. Significantly, PW-1 himself admitted during cross-examination that the meter had in fact been checked in the presence of the Production In charge of the plaintiff-company and further identified his signatures appearing on the checking report. Such admission substantially demolishes the plea that inspection was conducted behind the back of the consumer. 8. Equally meritless is the contention regarding difference in the name of the consumer. Both the Courts have rightly noticed that although certain documents mention "Barar Rebhoo", the account number throughout remained identical. The plaintiff himself produced previous electricity bills pertaining to the same account and admitted having regularly paid those bills. Once the appellant admittedly continued to avail electricity through the same account and accepted the earlier bills without objection, the mere clerical error in the description of the consumer could not invalidate the assessment. Such finding is based upon admissions of the plaintiff and cannot be characterized as either illegal or perverse. 9. The Courts below have further relied upon the instantaneous electronic meter data generated by the meter itself, which disclosed that one phase remained non-functional over a considerable period resulting in under- recording of consumption. The electronic data was not shown to have been manipulated or fabricated. On the contrary, there is no expert evidence produced by the plaintiff to discredit the authenticity of the meter data or to establish that the assessment was technically incorrect. 10. Merely because the departmental officials may not have carried YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.09 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4539-2019 (O&M) [4] out periodical inspection with desired regularity would not extinguish the liability of a consumer to pay for electricity actually consumed. Recovery of actual charges for electricity supplied cannot be defeated solely because of administrative lapse on the part of departmental officials. The object of the Electricity Act is not to permit unjust enrichment of a consumer at the cost of public revenue. 11. Much emphasis has been laid upon the alleged non-service of notice contemplated under the departmental Sales Circular. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that there was some procedural irregularity in service of notice, the same by itself would not render the assessment non est unless prejudice is demonstrated. The appellant has not disputed either the inspection or the correctness of the meter data nor has it established that the amount assessed was factually erroneous. No material has been produced to show that had an additional opportunity been afforded, the result of assessment would have been any different. Thus, no prejudice having been established, the plea founded upon violation of natural justice deserves rejection. 12. Both the Courts below have concurrently appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence and have recorded findings after assigning cogent reasons. Such findings neither suffer from misreading of evidence nor are shown to be based upon inadmissible material. 13. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is confined to determination of substantial questions of law. The High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence merely because another view may also be possible. Interference is permissible only where concurrent YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.09 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4539-2019 (O&M) [5] findings are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or arrived at by ignoring material evidence. It has been consistently held by the Supreme Court that concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in a second appeal unless such findings are perverse or give rise to a substantial question of law. The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the present case falls within any of the recognised exceptions warranting interference. 14. The findings concurrently recorded by both the Courts below are based upon proper appreciation of evidence, admissions made by the plaintiff himself, and the contemporaneous departmental record. No perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error has been pointed out. 15. Consequently, no substantial question of law arises for consideration under Section 100 CPC. The present Regular Second Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 16. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 09.07.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No Uploaded on: 09.07.2026 YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.09 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document