ASSISTANT ENGINEER, JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM vs BODAN RAM

PETITIONERS were opposite parties before the District Forum in a complaint filed by respondent-Bodan Ram. District Forum allowed the complaint. Opposite parties aggrieved by the order of the District Forum filed appeal before the State Commission which by its impugned order affirmed the order of the District Forum holding that the petitioner was deficient in service in not providing electric connection to Bodan Ram for agricultural purposes.

BODAN Ram had applied for electric connection in the year 1987 and he was placed in the seniority list at No. 44 on 12.2.2002 he was asked to pay Rs. 59,470/- for providing electric connection which on representation by Bodan Ram was reduced to Rs. 12,470/-. This amount Bodan Ram deposited on 1.6.2002 and became entitled to the electric connection. Three other persons at Serial Nos. 46, 47 and 56 were also became entitled to electric connection under a certain scheme and they deposited Rs. 36,000/- for grant of electric connection. It appears on 25.6.2002 these three persons at Serial Nos. 46, 47 and 56 made a complaint about the charges received from Bodan Ram. Their case was that the line from which electric connection was provided to Bodan Ram was the one for which they had paid for grant of electric connection to their fields. They, therefore, said that Bodan Ram should also bear the proportion of that expenses for the electric line. It is contended by the petitioners that because of resolving this controversy electric connection could not be granted to Bodan Ram. This plea is certainly height of impropriety on the part of the petitioners inasmuch as petitioners had received amounts not only from Bodan Ram but also from other three persons at Serial Nos. 46, 47 and 56. Electric connection could have been granted to all of them and the dispute could have been resolved at any later stage. It appears that the officers of the petitioners at lower rank otherwise must see some opportunity to harass the consumer, may be for ulterior purposes. Since there was delay in granting electric connection in spite of the amounts having been deposited, a complaint was filed before the District Forum which as stated above allowed the same and directed that immediate steps be taken to release the electric connection to the complainant and a further direction was that it be ensured that electric connection would be granted within a maximum period of 60 days. It was also mentioned that in case there was default in compliance of the order petitioners-opposite parties were to pay jointly and severally by way of compensation Rs. 100/- per day to the complainant who was also entitled to cost of Rs. 500/-. The impugned order of the District Forum is 9.4.2003. As noted, appeal against that order was dismissed by the State Commission by order dated 28.8.2003. Nevertheless, State Commission granted one month''s more time to release the electric connection, if not already released and it was stated that if it was not done, the complainant would be entitled to compensation as ordered by the District Forum. Aggrieved from the order of the State Commission, this petition has been filed by the petitioner. Circumstances narrated above show how the petitioner is grossly deficient in providing electric connection to the complainant Bodan Ram. We do not find this is a fit case for us to exercise our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This petition is dismissed.