AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. vs NARAINI DEVI

In this revision petition, the impugned order dated 07.10.2015, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ''the State Commission'') in FA No. 376/2015, " Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. Naraina Devi ", has been challenged, vide which, while dismissing the said appeal, the order passed by the District Forum Ajmer on 19.02.2015 in consumer complaint No. 286/2013, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

The complainant/respondent Naraini Devi, obtained a domestic electricity connection from the opposite party (OP) and according to her, she used to regularly pay the electricity bills raised by this company. As stated in the complaint, she had already got dug a bore and got installed a diesel engine of Kirlosker company in a separate room, and this arrangement was being used for irrigation of her agricultural land. The case of the complainant is that she never used the said electricity connection for agricultural purposes. However, the OP sent her a letter dated 07.05.2013, by which they asked her to deposit a sum of 57,167/-, saying that as per inquiry report dated 15.02.2013, carried out by their Vigilance Department, she had been found using the said domestic connection for agricultural purposes. The complainant asked for a copy of the said

vigilance report, but the same was not supplied to her. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking direction to the OP, not to recover the sum of 57,167/- and to give a direction that the officials should not disconnect her electricity connection.

The complaint was resisted by the OP by filing a written statement before the District Forum, in which they stated that a vigilance party headed by a Junior Engineer found on inspection on 15.02.2013 that the complainant was using her domestic connection for agricultural purposes, which amounted to theft of electricity u/s 135 of the Electricity Act. The respondent was asked to pay a sum of 57,167/- consisting of 12,240/- as compounding amount and 44,927/- as civil liability. She was found utilizing 4.54 KW of load, whereas only 1 KW load had been sanctioned to her. The OP also stated that the consumer fora did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in question.

The District Forum after taking into account, the contentions of both the parties, allowed the complaint on the plea that the complainant was not present at the time of checking, neither she was informed about the investigation. It is further stated that at the time of said checking, the house of the complainant was locked and there are no signatures of the complainant on the vigilance report. The District Forum also observed that there were signatures of two persons on the margin of the report, but their names had not been written, nor there was description of the name of the Junior Engineer. The affidavit of the Junior Engineer or the two persons mentioned in the report had not been filed. The District Forum concluded that the inspection done on 15.02.2013 had not been proved and hence, the notice sent to the complainant for recovery of the amount in question was set aside. Being aggrieved against the said order, the OP/Petitioner challenged the same by way of appeal before the State Commission, which having been dismissed vide impugned order, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner stated that this was a case of misuse of electricity and not that of theft. He admitted that the judgments passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in " U.P.Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmad (Civil Appeal No. 5466/2012 decided on 01.07.2013) ", was, therefore, not applicable in the present case. He, however, stated that the complainant was using a load of 4.5 KW against the sanctioned load of 1 KW and that the electricity connection was for the domestic purpose, whereas the complainant was using the same for irrigating the land. The orders passed by the Consumer Fora below, therefore, deserve to be set aside.

I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.

It has been stated in the revision petition itself that when the vigilance party of the petitioner visited the premises of the complainant on 15.02.2013, they found the premises locked. However, they found that respondent was using her domestic connection for agricultural purposes and the crops were standing in the field. The load being consumed by her was 4.54 KW. It has also been stated in the grounds of Revision Petition that the report was prepared on the spot in the presence of two respectable persons, who signed the report and the same was signed by the Junior Engineer, who was heading the vigilance team.

It is clear from the above facts that at the time of the stated inspection by the OP, the complainant was not present on the spot, rather the said premises was found to be locked. It is not understood how the inspection party reached the conclusion that the connection was being used for agricultural purposes. Even if the crops were standing on the agricultural land, that does not mean that the irrigation for the crops had been done by using electricity for running some tubewell etc. The complainant stated in her complaint that she had installed the diesel pump for the purpose of carrying out the irrigation of the fields. In their reply to the complaint, the OP has not denied this version of the complainant. It was the duty of the OP to get the facts properly investigated at the time of their inspection. They have mentioned that the report was got signed by two respectables, but their names have not been revealed, neither any attempt has been made to obtain their testimony before the District Forum, either orally or in the shape of affidavit etc. Even the name of the Junior Engineer who is stated to have carried out the inspection, has not been revealed. It is clear, therefore, that the OPs have failed to prove their case against the complainant, beyond reasonable doubt.

It is a settled legal proposition that in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Commission, the concurrent findings given by the consumer fora below can be interfered only, if there is a patent error of law or jurisdiction in the same. This view has been taken by the Hon''ble Apex Court, while giving their judgment in the " Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 "

Based on the discussion above, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and there is no justification to make any modification in the orders passed by the Consumer Fora below. This revision petition is, therefore, dismissed and the orders passed by the lower Consumer Fora are upheld with no order as to costs.