JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM vs RAM KARAN

THIS revision petition has been filed by the Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ''Petitioner '') being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the ''State Commission '') in Appeal No. 583/2006 in favour of Ram Karan, Respondent herein, who was the original complainant before the District Forum.

IN his complaint before the District Forum, Respondent has contended that his late father had taken an electricity connection for agricultural purposes from the Petitioner/Nigam and his electricity connection was disconnected in 1998 because as per the Respondent his father had failed to deposit the pending dues on account of the electricity bills. Since it was necessary for Respondent and his joint family to get a new electricity connection to earn their livelihood, an application for reconnection was made and as advised by the Petitioner/Nigam, the outstanding amount was deposited in two instalments by Respondent ''s father i.e. Rs. 5,000 on 31.3.1998 and Rs. 8,071 on 9.6.1998. Despite this, the electricity connection at the agricultural well was not restored and instead a "V.C.R. " was issued levying charges of Rs. 5,000 against the Respondents which was also paid and again as advised by the Petitioner/Nigam, a fresh application for reconnection of electricity was made by depositing Rs. 75. Petitioner/Nigam thereafter issued a demand note after calling for the physical report of the power line. However, despite several applications and visits by the Respondent as well as his father to Petitioner ''s Office from 20.6.2001 to 5.5.2005 and the electricity connection has not been restored till date. Consequently, Respondent had to suffer a great loss in his agricultural work. Therefore, in order to redress his grievance, Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service since Petitioner failed to reconnect the electricity and requested that Petitioners be directed to reconnect the electricity immediately and also pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation for mental agony and financial loss, Rs. 10,000 on account of expenses on the various visits made to the Petitioner ''s office and Rs. 2,000 as litigation costs. The above contentions were denied by the Petitioners in their response to the Respondent ''s complaint and it was stated that the electricity reconnection could not be given because the Respondent had failed to deposit the requisite money against the demand notice which had been issued for reconnection of his electricity.

THE District Forum after hearing both parties and considering the evidence on record directed that upon deposit of the amount by the Respondent as per the demand note issued to him by Petitioner, the electricity connection be got reconnected within one month from the date of the order. Petitioner accordingly reissued the demand notice of 31.3.2002 for a sum of Rs. 81,850 to the Respondent. However, instead of settling this demand Respondent again filed a complaint before the District Forum on the grounds that the said demand notice for reconnection is illegal and should be quashed since it should have been issued in accordance with Agricultural Connection Guidelines, 2004 (as amended upto 18.9.2004) under Regulation No. 24 thereof and not the Special Category Connection (New) Regulations, 2002. Respondent also sought a sum of Rs. 10,000 for further mental agony caused besides litigation cost of Rs. 2,000.

THE District Forum after hearing the parties directed the Petitioners to settle the amount due as payable in accordance with Regulation No. 24 of the Agricultural Connection Guidelines, 2004 (as amended upto 18.9.2004) and not as per the Special Category Connection (New) Regulations, 2002 and that upon deposit of the amount calculated as directed above, the electricity be reconnected. In case any amount is found to have been deposited by the Respondent in excess, the same shall be appropriated/adjusted in the subsequent bills to be issued to the Respondent. Petitioner was also directed to pay Rs. 5,000 towards mental agony and litigation costs within one months failing which this amount would carry interest @ 9% per annum. Aggrieved by this order of the District Forum, Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum on the grounds that according to Regulation No. 24 of the Agricultural Connection Guidelines, 2004 an electricity connection which is lying disconnected for any period of time it is the Agricultural Connection Guidelines, 2004 which are applicable, and thus dismissed the Appeal.

HENCE , the present revision petition. During the pendency of this case, Respondent died and notices were issued to the legal representatives to be present. Process was given Dasti as well. Counsel for Petitioner has filed an affidavit of proof of service on the legal representatives by way of Dasti process. Despite service of this notice, neither the LRs nor their Counsel was present. It was, therefore, decided to proceed with the case ex parte. Counsel for Petitioner stated when the first complaint of the Respondent was heard before the District Forum, Petitioner had pointed out that a demand notice had been issued to the Respondent in 2002 which had not been paid by the Respondent. The District Forum taking cognizance of this fact had in its order, therefore, directed Respondent to deposit the amount as per the said demand note and on Respondent ''s doing so, the Petitioner was directed to reconnect the electricity connection of the Respondent within one month. Therefore, the subsequent order dated 1.2.2006 passed by the District Forum on the second complaint of the Respondent quashing the said demand notice and directing that a fresh demand notice should be issued based on Regulation No. 24 of Agricultural Connection Guidelines, 2004, in fact amounts to review by the District forum of its own order which is not permissible under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Counsel for Petitioner further stated that the Agricultural Connection Guidelines, 2004 by no stretch of imagination could be made applicable to the instant case where the electricity had been disconnected in 1998 and the demand notice was issued in response to the request for fresh reconnection in 2002 i.e. well before the Agricultural Connection Guidelines, 2004 even came into existence. Apart from this, a perusal of the Agricultural Connection Guidelines, 2004 clearly indicates that these are applicable to electricity connections which were disconnected within a period of 2 years from 30.6.2004 and also for electricity connections which had been disconnected prior to 30.6.2004 and within a period of 5 years before the said date. In the instant case, the electricity connection of the Respondent had been admittedly disconnected in the year 1998 which was clearly beyond the period of 5 years as provided under the Agricultural Connection Guidelines, 2004. In fact, if the Agricultural Connection Guidelines, 2004 are to be made applicable to this case then the electricity connection of the Respondent could not have been reconnected at all since the disconnection pertained to a period beyond 5 years before 30.6.2004.

WE have heard learned Counsel for Petitioner and have gone through the evidence on record. It is not in dispute that the electricity connection of the Respondent was disconnected in the year 1998 whereupon an application for reconnection was made in that year and certain amounts deposited on 31.3.1998 and 19.6.1998 as also Rs. 5,000 against the V.C.R. in the same year. It is further on record that the electricity connection of the Respondent which was disconnected in 1998 for non-payment of dues was not reconnected because Respondent had failed to deposit the entire dues as stated in the Petitioner ''s demand note of 2002. These were also the findings of the District Forum in its first order dated 8.8.2005. Thus, we find force in the contention of the Petitioner that for a demand notice issued in 2002, Petitioner could not possibly have calculated the amount due from the Respondent on the basis of an order of 2004 since it is obvious that this order was not even in existence in 2002; there can be no other finding or conclusion in this respect. Further, a perusal of Regulation No. 24 of Agricultural Connection Guidelines, 2004, makes it clear that its application in the Respondent ''s case would be of little help to him since these Regulations inter alia stipulate that it will be applicable only for electricity connections which were disconnected 5 years prior to 30.6.2004. In the instant case, admittedly the electricity was disconnected in 1998 which was beyond the period of 5 years. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the Agricultural Connection Guidelines, 2004 are not applicable in the case and the relevant Regulations in this case are the Special Category (New) Regulations, 2002. In view these facts, we are unable to uphold the findings of the Fora below and these are accordingly set aside. However, in terms of the order of the District Forum dated 8.8.2005 that on payment of the dues by the Respondent as per the demand note issued by the Petitioner on the basis of the Special Category Connection (new) Regulations 2002, Petitioner is directed to provide reconnection of electricity to the Respondent within one month. The revision petition is disposed of on the above terms. Revision Petition disposed of.