JUDGMENT 1. - Instant Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 21.1.1986 passed by learned Civil Judge, Sikar in Civil Appeal No. 83/83 whereby he reversed the judgment and decree dated 4.6.1983 passed by the learnd Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Sikar in Civil Suit No. 39 of 1980. 2. Brief facts as disclosed in the plaint are that the appellant- firm had taken a commercial light connection from Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Sikar in the month of April, 1977 and said electricity connection was numbered as 2-2-247. It is averred in the plaint that the appellant-firm had taken a power connection on 23.11.1977 and the appellant-firm had not consumed any commercial electricity prior to that date. 3. It is noticed from the averments made in the plaint that it was agreed between the plaintiff appellant and defendant- respondent at the time of giving commercial electricity connection that the actual consumption as recorded by the electricity meter which was to be installed by the defendant- Board shall be charged from the plaintiff- appellant. The electricity meter installed in the premises of the plaintiff- appellant's firm was on hire basis and required to be maintained by the Board. 4. A joint written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant-respondents denying the averments made in the plaint. It was alleged by the defendant respondents that the aforesaid demand raised by them is legal and in accordance with the provisions of law. It is pertinent to mention that in the written statement it was alleged that the plaintiff-appellant has tampered with the meter installed in his premises. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, necessary issues were framed by the learned trial Court and after analytical discussion of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court arrived at the conclusion that although it is alleged in the written statement that the plaintiff-appellant has tampered with electricity meter but in this regard, no evidence has been adduced by defendants. Thus the learned trial Court disbelieved the allegation with regard to tampering with the electricity meter by the plaintiff-appellant. 6. After analytical discussion of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court decreed the suit, against which, an appeal was preferred by the defendant-respondents, which was allowed by the learned lower appellate Court on 21.1.1986. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. 6. After analytical discussion of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court decreed the suit, against which, an appeal was preferred by the defendant-respondents, which was allowed by the learned lower appellate Court on 21.1.1986. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. It is urged by the learned counsel for appellant that under the terms and conditions stipulated in the agreement entered into between the plaintiff-appellant and defendant-respondents the alleged bill of disputed period was required to be sent to plaintiff-appellant on the basis of actual energy supplied and consumed by him and not on the basis of average. 9. Indisputably, it has come on record from the statement of DW 1 Arun Kumar Sharma that the electricity meter installed in the premises of the appellant-firm was not working from the date of its installation upto March 1979. 10. It goes without saying that the electricity meter was installed in the premises of the appellant-firm in the month of April 1977 therefore it was duty of the `defendant- respondents to maintain the electricity meter in working condition for disputed period. It was imperative upon the meter reader to make a complaint to his higher authorities to the effect that the electricity meter installed in the premises of the plaintiff- appellant- firm is not functioning. 11. It is next contended by the learned counsel for appellant that it was not his duty as held by the learned trial Court to inform the authorities but it was duty of the defendant-respondents to maintain the electricity meter in working condition for which they are charging exorbitant rent from him, provided there is no allegation of tampering with the meter by the consumer. In the present case the allegation of tampering of the meter by the plaintiff-appellant has been disbelieved by the learned trial Courts as no evidence was adduced to prove the said allegation. 12. In support of his aforesaid contention, the learned counsel for appellant placed reliance on a decision rendered by the Apex Court in case of M.P.E.B. & Ors. v. Snit. Basanti Bai, reported in AIR 1988 SC 71 . 12. In support of his aforesaid contention, the learned counsel for appellant placed reliance on a decision rendered by the Apex Court in case of M.P.E.B. & Ors. v. Snit. Basanti Bai, reported in AIR 1988 SC 71 . Learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on the decisions of this Court rendered in cases of M/s. Modern Syntex (India) v. R.S.E.B. & Ors., reported in 1991(2) RLR 795 and M/s. Banswara Syntex v. R.S.E.B. & Ors., reported in 1993(3) WLC 383 . 13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised at the Bar and the principle of law enunciated by the Apex Court in case of Smt. Basanti Bai (supra), the ratio decidendi of decisions rendered by this Court in case of M/s. Modern Syntex (supra) and M/s. Banswara Syntex (supra). According to these decisions, demand raised by the respondent-Board was disallowed as the matter was not referred to the Electric Inspector as envisaged under sub-sec. (6) of Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. 14. After looking into the ratio decidend of the decisions pronounced by the Apex Court in case of Smt. Basanti Bai (supra) and two decisions of this Court together with the judgments rendered by both the Courts-below, I consider it just and proper that it would not be fruitful to enter into the demerit and merit of the findings recorded by the learned lower appellate Court as the amount involved in the case about the disputed period is meagre amount. I am also of the view that the matter relates to 1977-79 and it would not be feasible to get the matter decided by the Electric Inspector as envisaged under section 26(6) of the Act of 1910. 15. To my mind, in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the equity could be adjusted between the parties if the amount already deposited by plaintiff-appellant- firm towards bill for the disputed period is taken to be sufficient without raising further demand.With the aforesaid observations, the instant Second Appeal is hereby finally disposed off. Cost is made easy.Appeal disposed off. *******