Concurrent Findings of Fact Regarding Electricity Theft and Meter Tampering Cannot Be Reopened in Second Appeal

The appellants ("Consumer") operated Swaminarayan Ice Factory at Mandal with an electricity connection from the respondent ("Electricity Company").

In July 2001, the meter was burnt; the Consumer complained on 20.07.2001, and upon inspection the meter was sent for laboratory testing, which found tampering.

The Company issued a supplementary bill, which the Consumer challenged before the Company's appellate committee, resulting in a reduced, revised supplementary bill.

The Consumer challenged the bill in Special Civil Suit No. 308 of 2001, while the Company filed Special Civil Suit No. 251 of 2003 for recovery.

By common judgment and decree dated 31.07.2013, the Trial Court dismissed the Consumer's suit and decreed the Company's suit for Rs. 3,86,882.48/- with 9% interest from the date of suit till realization.

The Consumer's first appeals (Regular Civil Appeal Nos. 5 of 2013 and 4 of 2013) were dismissed by the 5th Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Viramgam on 29.03.2024.

1. Whether the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below — that the Consumer committed theft of electricity by tampering with the meter — were perverse or grossly erroneous so as to warrant interference in second appeal.

2. Whether the High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, may reappreciate evidence — specifically the lineman's testimony (Exh. 56) that the meter seal was intact, allegedly overlooked by the Courts below — and substitute its own view for the concurrent findings of fact.

3. Whether the second appeals raised any substantial question of law as required by Section 100 CPC.

Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, under which a second appeal lies only on a substantial question of law and findings of fact, howsoever erroneous, cannot be reopened unless perverse, grossly erroneous, or contrary to settled principles of law.

Findings of fact cannot be disturbed in second appeal absent perversity.

A laboratory test report constitutes conclusive proof of meter tampering unless proved wrong, as visual inspection alone cannot confirm internal tampering.

The Court found that the Courts below had concurrently held the Consumer guilty of tampering based on the oral and documentary evidence of the Electricity Company, while the Consumer led no evidence in rebuttal and left the lab report (Exh. 43) uncontroverted.

Addressing the appellants' central argument, the Court held the lineman's evidence carried no weight because a lineman could not confirm tampering through visual inspection alone; the meter necessarily had to be sent to the laboratory, whose report was conclusive unless proved wrong — which the Consumer failed to do.

The Court reproduced the Appellate Court's detailed appreciation, noting that the meter was seized, sent to the laboratory, and tested in the presence of the Consumer's representative; the report (Exh. 43) confirmed tampering.

Reiterating that a second view is no ground to substitute the view of the Courts below, and applying Russi Fisheries and the settled line of Supreme Court precedent, the Court declined to reappreciate evidence under Section 100 CPC.

The Court dismissed both Second Appeals (R/SA Nos. 390 and 401 of 2026) with no order as to costs. Consequently, the Civil Applications (for stay) did not survive and were accordingly disposed of.