Md. Suleman Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors.

Md. Suleman vs Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Feb 12, 2008

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/516097

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/516097
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Judge: M.Y. Eqbal, J.
Decided On: Feb 12, 2008
Subject: Electricity

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A.No.59/1988] Section 166; [A.K. Patnaik, CJ, A.K. Gohil & S. Samvatsar, JJ] Application for compensation for personal injury Death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons Held, Claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. Claim will not survive to ...

Key legal issue: Electricity

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Md. Suleman

Advocate Mr. Ajit Kumar

Respondent

Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: [2008(2)JCR373(Jhr)]

Excerpt

- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant.orderm.y. eqbal, j.1. the petitioner seeks appropriate direction upon respondent no. 5, the electrical executive engineer, electric supply division no. 1, ranchi to issue revised bill after adjusting the amount, if any, as per the order passed by the general manager-cum-chief engineer in compliance of the direction of this court in wpc no. 5474/2002.2. the aforementioned writ petition was filed by the petitioner making grievance that without giving opportunity of hearing, the bill as per clause 16.9 of the tariff was issued and a fir was lodged for the alleged theft of electricity. the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file representation before the general manager-cum-chief engineer who, in turn, was directed to dispose of the representation and pass appropriate order. in compliance of the said order, the general manager-cum-chief engineer disposed of the representation with direction to the respondent concerned to issue fresh bill as per inspection report dated 14.7.2003 and to adjust the amount deposited by the petitioner as per the direction of the court.3. mr. ajit kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after order was passed in the earlier writ application, the petitioner deposited rs. 2.5 lacs but only rs. 21,864/- was adjusted.4. in the aforesaid premises i direct respondent no. 5, electrical executive engineer to furnish to the petitioner the details of the amount of bills for consumption of electricity and the manner, the amount deposited by the petitioner has been adjusted.5. if any further amount is liable to be adjusted, the same shall be adjusted in accordance with law. the details shall be furnished to the petitioner with a period of two weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order.6. with the aforesaid direction this writ application is disposed of.

Full Judgment

ORDER

M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. The petitioner seeks appropriate direction upon respondent No. 5, the Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division No. 1, Ranchi to issue revised bill after adjusting the amount, if any, as per the order passed by the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer in compliance of the direction of this Court in WPC No. 5474/2002.

2. The aforementioned writ petition was filed by the petitioner making grievance that without giving opportunity of hearing, the bill as per Clause 16.9 of the tariff was issued and a FIR was lodged for the alleged theft of electricity. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file representation before the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer who, in turn, was directed to dispose of the representation and pass appropriate order. In compliance of the said order, the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer disposed of the representation with direction to the respondent concerned to issue fresh bill as per inspection report dated 14.7.2003 and to adjust the amount deposited by the petitioner as per the direction of the Court.

3. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that after order was passed in the earlier writ application, the petitioner deposited Rs. 2.5 lacs but only Rs. 21,864/- was adjusted.

4. In the aforesaid premises I direct respondent No. 5, Electrical Executive Engineer to furnish to the petitioner the details of the amount of bills for consumption of electricity and the manner, the amount deposited by the petitioner has been adjusted.

5. If any further amount is liable to be adjusted, the same shall be adjusted in accordance with law. The details shall be furnished to the petitioner with a period of two weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order.

6. With the aforesaid direction this writ application is disposed of.

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2008 Same Parties Md. Suleman vs Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors. Same Subject Electricity Same Judge M.Y. Eqbal, J.

Electricity