State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Rajinder Kumar. vs Hpseb Ltd. & Anr. on 26 September, 2018
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
Revision Petition No.: 36/2018
Date of Presentation: 17.05.2018
Order Reserved On : 25.07.2018
Date of Order : 26.09.2018
......
Rajinder Kumar s/o Shri Jagdish Chand Koshal r/o H.No.19/09
Muhalla Bangla Tehsil Sadar District Mandi H.P. at present
H.No.360/4 near PWD Rest House Sunder Nagar Post Office
Bhojpur Tehsil SNR District Mandi H.P.
...... Revisionist/Complainant
Versus
1. The HPSEB Ltd. through its Secretary Vidyut Bhawan
Chaura Maidan Shimla-4 H.P.
2. The Sr. Executive Engineer HPSEB Limited Division
(Electrical) Mandi District Mandi H.P.
3. The Assistant Engineer HPSEB Limited Electrical Sub
Division Mandi District Mandi H.P.
...... Non-Revisionists/Opposite parties
Coram
Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For Revisionist : Mr. H.S. Rangra Advocate.
For Non-revisionists : Mr. Ramakant Sharma Advocate.
JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT:
O R D E R:-
1. Present revision petition is filed against interim order dated 26.04.2018 passed by learned District Forum 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
Rajinder Kumar Versus HPSEB Ltd. & Ors. (R.P. No.36/2018) in CMA No. 46 of 2017 titled Rajinder Kumar Versus The HPSEBL & Ors. whereby learned District Forum dismissed CMA No.46 of 2017 for grant of interim order relating to re-installment of electricity connection. Brief facts of consumer complaint:
2. Complainant Rajinder Kumar filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against opposite parties pleaded therein that complainant is government employee and is serving in Police Department. It is pleaded that in the year 2015 complainant was posted at Police Training Centre Drough District Kangra H.P. and thereafter was transferred to Police Headquarter Shimla. It is further pleaded that complainant installed electricity connection at his place of residence. It is further pleaded that house of complainant was built prior to 1980. It is further pleaded that opposite parties have disconnected the electricity connection in the month of October 2016 from the house of complainant for non-payment of electrical consumption charges without issuing any notice. It is further pleaded that complainant also approached opposite parties many times. It is further pleaded that complainant also issued legal notice to the opposite parties. Complainant sought relief to the effect 2 Rajinder Kumar Versus HPSEB Ltd. & Ors. (R.P. No.36/2018) that opposite parties be directed to reinstall the electrical connection at the residence of complainant situated at House No.19/09 Mohalla Bangla Tehsil Sadar District Mandi (H.P.). In addition complainant sought relief of payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.50000/- (Fifty thousand) on account of mental tension, torture and harassment. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.
3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties pleaded therein that complainant did not pay the electricity charges and also did not comply the terms and conditions of the electricity connection. It is further pleaded that complainant has to apply for fresh electricity connection as per codal formalities. It is further pleaded that complainant has himself flouted Electricity Rules and it is further pleaded that complainant has no cause of action against the opposite parties. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.
4. During the pendency of consumer complaint complainant filed CMA No.46 of 2017 for grant of interim relief under Section 13 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Complainant sought interim relief to the effect that opposite parties be directed to reinstall the electricity connection at 3 Rajinder Kumar Versus HPSEB Ltd. & Ors. (R.P. No.36/2018) the residence of the complainant and complainant also sought relief that detail of pending bills be supplied to the complainant.
5. Response to interim application not filed by opposite parties.
6. Learned District Forum on dated 26.04.2018 dismissed the interim application filed by complainant on the ground that if interim relief is granted as prayed then same will amount to allowing consumer complaint without trial which is not permissible under law.
7. Feeling aggrieved against interim order passed by learned District Forum revisionist/complainant filed present revision petition before State Commission.
8. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully.
9. Following points arise for determination in present revision petition.
1. Whether revision petition filed by revisionist is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of revision petition.
2. Final order.
4
Rajinder Kumar Versus HPSEB Ltd. & Ors. (R.P. No.36/2018) Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
10. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that interim order dated 26.04.2018 passed by learned District Forum is contrary to law and on this ground revision petition be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that before passing interim order learned District Forums are under legal obligation to consider three factors (i) Prima-facie case
(ii) Balance of Convenience (iii) Irreparable loss. It is prima-
facie proved on record that as per letter of Assistant Engineer dated 19.02.2018 electricity connection of complainant was disconnected due to non-payment of electricity bills to the tune of Rs.4220/- (Four thousand two hundred twenty). State Commission is of the opinion that as per Electricity Rules Electricity Department is legally competent to disconnect the electricity connection for non- payment of arrears of electricity bills.
11. State Commission is of the opinion that electricity is necessity of life. State Commission is of the opinion that complainant is legally competent to apply for fresh electricity connection after completion of all codal formalities and after payment of arrears of electricity bills. 5
Rajinder Kumar Versus HPSEB Ltd. & Ors. (R.P. No.36/2018)
12. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of non-revisionists that order passed by learned District Forum is in accordance with law and is in accordance with proved facts and on this ground revision petition be dismissed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that in view of the fact that electricity is necessity of life it is held that prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss are in favour of complainant/revisionist and are not in favour of Electricity Department because under Electricity Rules complainant is legally entitled for restoration of disconnected electricity connection after completion of all codal formalities and after payment of arrears of electricity bills to the tune of Rs.4220/- (Four thousand two hundred twenty). Point No.1 is decided accordingly.
Point No.2: Final Order
13. In view of findings upon point No.1 above revision petition is allowed. Interim order of learned District Forum dated 26.04.2018 passed in CMA No.46 of 2017 is set aside and it is ordered that revisionist/complainant would pay arrears of electricity bills to the tune of Rs.4220/- (Four thousand two hundred twenty) to the Electricity Department and thereafter complainant would 6 Rajinder Kumar Versus HPSEB Ltd. & Ors. (R.P. No.36/2018) apply for fresh electricity connection and would complete all codal formalities.
14. It is further ordered that after completion of all codal formalities in accordance with Electricity Rules Electricity Department will restore electricity connection of the complainant. Order passed in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice keeping in view the fact that electricity is essential service and is public utility service as of today.
15. Parties are directed to appear before learned District Forum on 23.10.2018. Learned District Forum shall dispose of consumer complaint expeditiously within two months in accordance with law after receipt of file because proceedings under Consumer Protection Act 1986 are time bound proceedings.
16. Observations shall not effect merits of consumer complaint in any manner. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of 7 Rajinder Kumar Versus HPSEB Ltd. & Ors. (R.P. No.36/2018) costs strictly as per rules. Revision petition is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Vijay Pal Khachi Member 26.09.2018.
*GUPTA* 8