National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Rajasthan State Electricity Board And ... vs Jagroop Singh on 15 February, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2(2007)CPJ153(NC)
ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member)
1. In this revision, challenge is to the order dated 19.12.1997 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rajasthan, Jaipur disposing of appeal filed by the petitioner Board by modifying the order of a District Forum dated 16.1.1993. English translation at page 49 of the operative portion of the District Forum's order passed in complaint filed by the respondent/complainant which is material, is reproduced below:
In view of the above discussion, the complaint of the complainant is proper and justifiable. Therefore, the complaint of complainant is allowed and respondents are ordered to make the payment of Rs. 5,000 on account of compensation for illegal disconnection of electricity, Rs. 10,000 for damage to starter, copper-wire main switch etc. and expenses for their re-fitting, Rs. 10,000 as compensation for loss of reputation and mental torture to the applicant, totalling to Rs. 10,000 to the applicant and also provide him the electricity connection as earlier and also make the payment of above mentioned amount of compensation within one month.
2. Operative portion of the order of State Commission which too is material runs thus:
In view of our discussions made above we, therefore, modify the order as under:
That the damages which have been awarded for mental agony, losses and costs shall all be subject to the outcome of the criminal cases. The RSEB shall try to get the case expeditely pending in the criminal Courts and in case the complainant is convicted by the Criminal Court the entire amount awarded in this complaint along with the costs shall be repayable to the Electricity Board and the Board shall be free to add this amount of the bills raised of course subsequent to the conviction. In case the complainant stands acquitted the present order of the District Forum continues to be operative. The Board shall seek explanation from the concerned officers as to why they failed in either not filing their affidavits when the mala fides were alleged or if filed fail to appear for cross-examination. If no satisfactory answer is coming then it will be open for the Board to realise such part of money as it deems proper from them for their defaults.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
3. Submission advanced by Mr. Rohit Madan for petitioner/opposite party Board is that the electric connection of the respondent was disconnected for non-payment of electricity dues on 15.11.1991 still on 24.2.1992 on inspection the respondent was found using electricity unauthorisedly for which FIR was lodged against him. Prior notice of disconnection of electricity was served on the respondent by the department. Order passed by the District Forum as modified by the State Commission was, thus, legally erroneous. In support of submission he invited our attention to the affidavit dated 17.7.1992 of Suraj Bhan Angi, Assistant Engineer (Vigilance) filed before the District Forum. On inquiry, Mr. Madan pointed out that the respondent has since been acquitted by Criminal Court of the charge of theft of electricity by giving benefit of doubt. As may be seen from the said affidavit of Mr. Angi the precise date of disconnection of electricity prior to inspection on 24.2.1992has not been disclosed therein, and it is silent in regard to giving of any prior notice of disconnection to the respondent. Order of District Forum notices that there is discrepancy in the stand taken by petitioner Board in regard to date of disconnection as in FIR it is noted as 24.2.1992 which was the date of inspection. In this backdrop, the Board must be held to have failed to establish satisfactorily that electric connection of respondent was disconnected on 15.11.1991. Theft of electricity was co-related with disconnection. That apart, affidavit of said Mr. Angi cannot be read in evidence as he failed to make himself available for the purpose of cross-examination by the respondent. On this aspect, the petitioner Board has also invited adverse comments at the hands of Fora below.
4. For the foregoing discussion, submission referred to above advanced on behalf of petitioner Board is repelled being without any merit. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by District Forum as modified by the State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.