National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Bali Ram Azad vs Executive Engineer, Electrical ... on 24 January, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3305 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 07/09/2017 in Appeal No. 102/2017 of the State Commission Himachal Pradesh) 1. BALI RAM AZAD S/O. SHRI GOVINDA RAM, R/O. VILLAGE SOHAR, P.O. BAROTI TEHSIL SUNDER NAGAR, DISTRICT-MANDI HIMACHAL PRADESH ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, HPSEB & ANR. SUNDER NAGAR, DISTRICT- MANDI HIMACHAL PRADESH 2. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION HPSEB LTD. KANGOO, TEHSIL SUNDER NAGAR, DISTRICT-MANDI HIMACHAL PRADESH ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : IN PERSON For the Respondent :
Dated : 24 Jan 2018 ORDER
1. This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission, Himachal Pradesh dated 7th September, 2017 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner/complainant against the order of the District Forum dismissing his complaint.
2. Briefly stated facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the petitioner filed a consumer complaint in the District Forum, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh on the allegations that he had an electric connection at his residential house provided by the opposite party electricity supply company. In the year 2012 the complainant started receiving exorbitant bills not corresponding to the energy consumed by him. The complainant protested against the issue of exorbitant bills but in vain. The opposite party kept on issuing excessive bills dated 1.9.2012, 1.2.2012, 1.2.2013, 1.6.2013 and lastly on 1.9.2013. Though the amount of the bill was partially paid by the complainant but his electricity connection was disconnected by the staff of opposite party illegally. Being aggrieved the complainant raised a consumer dispute by approaching the District Forum, Mandi and sought the relief as under: -
"It is therefore prayed that in view of the submissions made above this complaint may kindly be allowed and the electrical five bills as mentioned in Annexure C-A be quashed and the opposite party may kindly be directed to pay Rs.70,000/- to the complainant for causing mental agony, harassment and deficiency in service alongwith Rs.11000/- as cost of complaint and it be further directed to restore the electrical connection of the complainant which has been illegally disconnected by the opposite parties and justice be done."
3. The opposite parties contested the complaint by filing joint reply wherein preliminary objections pertaining to maintainability, cause of action, jurisdiction, mis-joinder of parties as also the limitation were raised. On merits it was pleaded that the electricity connection of the complainant was a commercial connection and the complainant was not regular in making payment of electricity bills. Consequently, the outstanding amount kept on accumulating. In January, 2012 because of some technical defect in the electricity meter, it was changed. Even thereafter, the complainant failed to make payment of the bills issued for consumption of electricity. Therefore, a notice dated 9th July, 2013 was issued to the complainant calling upon the complainant to pay the amount due within 15 days failing which the electricity connection would be disconnected.
4. Learned District Forum on consideration of pleadings and the evidence dismissing the complaint. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of his complaint, the complainant approached the State Commission, Himachal Pradesh in appeal. The State Commission on re-appreciation of evidence did not find merit in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. This has led to filing of the revision petition.
5. Petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission is based upon incorrect appreciation of the evidence. It is argued that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that although the electricity connection of the petitioner was residential the disputed bills were exorbitant as compared to the previous bills. It is further argued that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that learned District Forum had committed jurisdictional error by not allowing the petitioner/complainant to lead evidence to prove his allegations.
6. The contention of the petitioner is misconceived. On perusal of the impugned order it transpires that the State Commission has confirmed the order of the District Forum on the ground that the petitioner has failed to discharge his onus to prove that the disputed bills were exorbitant and not in accordance with the electricity consumed. I find no infirmity in the aforesaid conclusion of the State Commission. So far as the contention of the petitioner that he was not given adequate opportunity to lead evidence by the District Forum is concerned, it would be noticed from the impugned order that adequate opportunity was given to the petitioner to lead evidence to prove his allegations but he failed to adduce evidence. Relevant observations of the State Commission are reproduced as under: -
"Complainant did not file any evidence by way of affidavits before learned District Forum as per mode mentioned under Section 13 (4) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 relating to controversial facts and relating to consumer dispute. Learned advocate who appeared on behalf of complainant has stated before learned District Forum on 18.7.2015 that complainant has already filed documents where be considered as evidence. Learned advocate submitted that complainant does not want to lead any evidence on behalf of complainant. Order of learned District Forum dated 18.7.2015 is autoed in toto: -
18.7.2015 Present: Sh. M.C. Sharma Advocate Ld. Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. N.D. Sharma Advocate vice Sh. Ravi Singh Rana Advocate Ld. Counsel for the opposite Parties.
It is stated by the ld. counsel for the complainant that the complainant has already filed documents which may be considered in evidence. He further stated that no fresh evidence is intended to be adduced.
List for evidence of the opposite parties on 25.8.2015.
Sd/-
President Sd/- Sd/- Member Member
It is proved on record that thereafter on 8.10.2015 learned advocate for the complainant submitted before learned District Forum that complainant wants to file rejoinder and evidence. Prayer of complainant was not opposed by the opposite parties and thereafter case was listed for rejoinder and evidence of complainant on 14.12.2015. Thereafter learned District Forum adjourned the complaint for 19.2.2016 for rejoinder and adducing evidence of complainant. Again on 19.2.2016 complainant did not file any rejoinder nor adduce any evidence and on 19.2.2016 learned District Forum closed the evidence of complainant by the order of Forum."
7. In view of the above stated reasons, I do not find any infirmity in the concurrent finding of fact returned by the Fora below resulting in dismissal of the complaint. The petitioner has failed to show any jurisdictional error on the part of the Fora below or infirmity in the impugned order which may call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition is dismissed.
......................J AJIT BHARIHOKE PRESIDING MEMBER