National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs Dalvir Singh on 17 November, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1049 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 31/08/2016 in Appeal No. 161/2015 of the State Commission Rajasthan) 1. JODHPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (O& M) SARDAR SHEHAR JDVVNL RATANGARH DISTRICT-CHURU RAJASHTAN ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. DALVIR SINGH S/O. SHRI JUG LAL, R/O. MALSAR TEHSIL DISTRICT-SARDAR SHEHAR CHURU RAJASTHAN ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DR. B.C. GUPTA,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Gupta, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 17 Nov 2017 ORDER DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
1. This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 31.8.2016 passed in appeal No. 161 of 2015 by Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Bikaner (in short, 'the State Commission') whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the OP.
2. The complainant, Dalveer Singh had taken electricity connection for his agricultural well with the load of 30 HP. He was paying bills regularly. The OP officials forced to get dug another well for the purpose of shifting the electricity connection to it. The complainant deposited Rs.47,600/- on 08-11-2013, but, prior to that, on 18.06.2013, OP forcibly removed the transformer without giving any notice of disconnection to the complainant. Being aggrieved by the said disconnection, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Churu, Rajasthan (in short the District Forum).
3. The petitioner/OP resisted the complaint and denied that it was on account of dispute with the complainant and the department that the complainant had been forced to have another well dug. The complainant fraudulently took an electricity connection in his agricultural land at Khasra No. 1081/547 but the same was installed on his another land at Khasra No. 1080/547, which was illegal. One Mr. Naresh Kumar S/o Jai Pal Singh Jat had lodged a complaint with the OP/department in the month of May, 2013 that Dalvir Singh had got sanctioned the electricity connection in relation to his land situated at Khasra No. 1081/547. The petitioner/department through Tehsildar Sardar Shehar, got the site inspected and found that the complainant was using illegally the electricity connection on another khasra. Therefore, the demand notice was issued to the complainant for Rs.1500/- towards transportation charges but the complainant inter alia submitted that he will transfer the required material like pole, transformer etc. to the designated place on his own and asked for deduction of Rs.1500/- from the demand notice issued to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant deposited the amount of demand notice on 8.11.2013 wherein job offer was issued on 14.11.2013 but the complainant did not transfer the material required for shifting. The OP also submitted that the complainant had earlier also filed another Complaint No.692 of 2012 in relation to the bills towards the consumption which was, however, dismissed as withdrawn by the complainant on 24-06-2013. Thus, the present complaint amounts to res judicata. Thus, the complaint is not maintainable.
4. The District Forum on the basis of the pleading and evidence partially allowed the complaint and directed the OP to shift the electricity connection of the complainant and start electricity supply. Also, allowed interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of Rs.47,600/- deposited by the complainant with effect from 23-04-2014 along with Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as cost. Being aggrieved the opposite party approached the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short the State Commission) by filing a first appeal which was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the OP filed this instant revision petition.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner OP at admission stage. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that this case pertains to 'res judicata'. The complainant took the said electricity connection by playing fraud. He illegally installed the connection on his other land at Khasra No.1080/547 and started illegal use of electricity. The demand notice which had been issued to the complainant contain a figure of Rs.1,500/- towards transportation charges but the complainant himself submitted that he will carry the pole, transformer, etc., to the designated place on his own and prayed for waiver of the said Rs.1,500/- as transportation charges. Therefore, respondent/OP deducted the said amount of Rs.1,500/- from the demand notice as issued to the complainant. The complainant deposited the said amount on 08-11-2013 wherein, the job order was issued on 14-11-2013. However, despite the same, complainant did not transfer the material required for shifting and, therefore, agricultural connection could not be established and not transferred at the designated site. It is further stated that there had been no delay from the OP in transfer of electricity connection. Hence, the department is not responsible for the loss of crop as alleged. The complainant in accordance with Rule No.51(iv) ought to have appeared before redressal committee of OP. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
6. It is pertinent to note that the department has dispatched the notice vide registered vide registered post 13-06-2013 which was dated as 03-06-2013. The said notice was received by the complainant and without giving any opportunity to the complainant the electricity connection was disconnected and the transformer was also removed by the officials of OP on 18-06-2013. Even though the electricity connection of complainant had not been restored till date, we are of the considered view that on account of non shifting of his electricity connection by the OP department, the complainant lost a chance for cultivation for past two years and suffered financial loss. Thus, it is clear that OP had removed the connection of the complainant forcibly along with transformer. It is an admitted fact that the complainant was having an electricity connection and he had submitted an application for another connection which was not given to him despite payment but OP disconnected the said connection which amounts to deficiency in service.
7. Therefore, on the basis of foregoing discussion, we do not find any illegality in the orders passed by both the fora below. Hence, the revision petition is hereby dismissed. The parties to bear their own costs.
...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER