Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd vs Keshav Dev Gupta

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 2.9.2008 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 469 of 2002 Keshav Dev Gupta Vs. AVVNL by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was set aside.

BRIEF facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent was having electricity connection from OP/petitioner. Complainant''s electricity meter was faulty even then he was paying bill till July, 2000 and had deposited amount towards consumption of 18,565 units. It was further submitted that in August, 2000, OP issued bill showing consumption of 10206 units which was wrong. OP included amount of Rs.35,618.94 in the bill without any basis. Complainant requested OP to rectify the bill and upon his request, matter was referred to Settlement Committee. Complainant deposited Rs.30,000/ - under protest. It was further submitted that Settlement Committee without any basis and without getting meter checked observed that monthly electricity consumption of complainant is to be taken as 1109 units and issued orders for recovery of additional amount. It was further submitted that Settlement Committee added one line regarding acceptance of order by complainant suo moto. It was further submitted that later on OP installed new meter and bill was issued on the basis of 1109 units per month erroneously. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that as per settlement arrived at between the parties on 5.12.2001 which was accepted by complainant by putting signatures, amount of ?45,458.95 was credited to the account of complainant and still ?43,030/ - was lying outstanding against the complainant which he did not deposit, so, his electricity connection was disconnected and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by complainant was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and learned State Commission ordered that average of 1109 units per month as calculated by Settlement Committee may be modified by 291 units per month and accordingly bills be issued and excess amount recovered may be refunded with interest against which this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.

NONE appeared for respondent even after service and he was proceeded ex -parte. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record.

APPLICATION for condonation of delay of 94 days was allowed by this Commission vide order dated 12.5.2009 subject to payment of Rs.2500/. It appears that as cost was not paid this order was recalled by order dated 27.8.2013. As delay had already been condoned by order dated 12.5.2009 which was re called on account of non -payment of cost, I deem it appropriate to condone delay of 94 days subject to payment of Rs.5,000/ - to respondent as cost.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as order was passed by Settlement Committee with the consent of complainant, there was no deficiency on the part of OP in issuing bill in accordance with Settlement Committee order and learned District forum rightly dismissed complaint, but learned State Commission committed error in allowing complaint without any basis; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside.

LEARNED State Commission rightly observed as under: "In the present case, it is not in dispute that the complainant had himself raised the dispute before the Settlement Committee of Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and the decision which was given by the said Settlement Committee, thereupon the complainant/consumer had also appended his signatures.

In the present case it is also not in dispute that it has been categorically recorded therein that the decision which has been taken by the parties, the same is acceptable to the complainant and such a finding has not been written later nor is there any cutting in the same. In the present case, the basis which has been laid down for recovery of the amount by the respondent from the complainant is as under:

"The complainant/consumer should be demanded the amount which is calculated on the basis of 12 months/one year average and which is worked out at 1109 units per month"A.

Later on, learned State Commission re -calculated average of 291 units instead of 1109 units and allowed complaint. Once on the initiation of complainant Settlement Committee was constituted and Settlement Committee took their decision with the consent of complainant that could not have been challenged before Consumer Fora and if the complainant had any grievance against the order of Settlement Committee, he should have approached to higher authorities as provided under Electricity Act. There was no occasion for learned State Commission to re -calculate consumption of units per month. Complainant has not produced any document which reveals that amount was deposited by him under protest. On the other hand, as per written statement credit of Rs.45,458.95 was given to the complainant by Settlement Committee. Once findings of Settlement Committee have been accepted by both the parties and acted upon it could not have been challenged before Consumer Fora and complaint was rightly dismissed by District Forum and learned State Commission committed error in allowing complaint.

IN the light of above discussion, impugned order is liable to set aside.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order dated 2.9.2008 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 469 of 2002 Keshav Dev Gupta Vs. AVVNL is set aside and order of District forum dated 3.4.2002 passed in Complaint No. 21/2002 Keshav Dev Gupta Vs. AVVNL is affirmed subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/ - to respondent within four weeks from the receipt of copy of the order after paying cash or adjusting in his electricity bill failing which this revision petition shall automatically stand dismissed as barred by limitation.