Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited vs NARAIN SINGH

REVISION petition No. 4113 of 2014 has been filed against the order dated 10.06.2014 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Jodhpur (''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 214 of 2012.

THE brief facts of the case as per the respondent/complainant are that the respondent had taken an agricultural connection in respect of his farm earlier from the petitioner which had been disconnected. Subsequently, there was sufficient water in his well he made an application for the reconnection of his electricity connection on the said land. The respondent also deposited the amount as per the demand notice issued by the petitioner, however, it was stated that still, the petitioner did not reconnect the electricity connection because of which the respondent was deprived of cultivating his field. Accordingly, the respondent had filed the complaint before the District Forum below for being granted the damages in this regard and other compensation.

PETITIONER /opposite party in their reply before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jodhpur (''the District Forum'') denied that the complainant and stated that since there was no water at all in the well of the respondent in the first place nor there was any water in the neighbour wells and accordingly, no irrigation whatsoever had at all been carried out either in the land of the respondent or in the neighbouring land.

THE agricultural connection of the respondent remained disconnected since March 1999 and as per the Rules and Regulations of the Department, in case any agricultural connection remains disconnected for 15 years and thereafter in case the consumer makes another application for grant of connection then in that case his agricultural connection cannot be restored. The respondent in order to save himself from the above said regulations of the department, wants to get his connection restored within the period of 15 years so as to ensure that his connection does not fall into dead category, even though there is no water whatsoever in the aforesaid agricultural connection of the consumer. Vide receipt No. 3109/22 dated 13.11.2007 a sum of Rs. 4850/ - had been got deposited and along with the same on 13.11.2007 itself and "L" Form No. 10555 dated 12.11.2007 was presented seeking connection of 7.5 hp load. Upon deposit of the demanded amount as per the demand note on 13.11.2007 the petitioner department issued the reconnection order vide order No. 472 of 43 dated 17.11.2007 and the order was thereafter sent to the Executive Engineer Bhilara and the Executive Engineer Bhilara immediately thereafter intimated the respondent in this regard to the effect that in accordance with the regulations of the department he was supposed to carry the meter fitted transformer and other material and he was informed that he should carry the meter fitted transformer and other material on the same day itself so that his connection could be released, however, the respondent did not do so, for the reason that there was no water whatsoever in the well of the respondent and in fact, the respondent had given the request for reconnection for his electricity connection only to ensure that his agricultural connection remained in the ''live category''. The respondent was very well aware of the fact that in case he was to carry the meter fitted transformer and other material for the purpose of reconnection then his agricultural connection would be reconnected and his bill would also commence accordingly. For this reason the respondent did not want to get his agricultural connection restored on his own and for this reason the respondent did not contact the office of the petitioner department for the purpose of carrying the material nor did he give any application in writing in this regard nor did he present any complaint before the higher officials of the petitioner department.

DISTRICT Forum vide their order dated 14.08.2012 allowed the complaint and observed in their order as under: "The counsel for the respondent has produced a copy of a circular dated 09.04.2008 (Exhibit R5) wherein it has been stated that the requirement for the complainant for carrying out the material from the office of the respondent to decide after deposit of the demand notice. It is very clear from serial No. 4 of the said circular that for the purposes of the agricultural connection the charges for carrying of the requisite material would be borne by the department and for this purpose an additional amount of Rs. 1500/ - would be charged and in case the said delivery of material was to be effected by the complainant himself then the said amount would not be charged from him, from where it was more than apparent that it was not imperative for the complainant alone to carry the requisite material. The respondent ought to have delivered the requisite material on its own within the stipulated time period and should have granted the electricity connection and would have charged an additional amount of Rs. 1500/ - from the complainant. However, simply by stating that the complainant did not carry the requisite material at the site, the respondent have stated that the electricity connection of the complainant would not be released is clearly incorrect and by doing so the respondent have committed deficiency in service.

However, as is apparent from the aforesaid discussion that up till 27.11.2007, the electricity connection ought to have been granted to the complainant and that in the month of November end there was no cultivation of the crop of Rye, Jeera and Saunf and if the same is done, the same is done for a very low scale and normally no agriculturist would carry out the cultivation of such a crop in November end. It is, however, cleared that no account of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent the complainant had to suffer mental agony to some extent even financial loss. Accordingly, the complainant is awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/ - from the respondent towards mental agony and financial loss and a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - towards litigation cost, which appears to be reasonable.

Accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is accepted that the respondents shall jointly and severally pay to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of order a sum of Rs. 25,000/ - towards mental agony and financial loss besides a sum of Rs. 5000/ - towards litigation cost, thereby totally a sum of Rs. 30,000/ -."

AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission while dismissing the appeal held that: "We have heard the arguments of the appellant and perused the pleadings. The District Forum has passed a detailed order after giving a detailed discussion, wherein we do not see any reason to interfere for the reason that a circular dated 09.04.2008 Exhibit R5 was filed by the respondent - Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited wherein it is clearly stipulated at serial No. 4 that the charges for carrying the requisite material for the grant of agricultural connection would be borne by the department and for this purpose an additional charge of Rs. 1500/ - would be so levied and in case the said carriage was to be effected by the complainant himself then no carriage charges would be levied upon him. From the aforesaid it is evident that it was no obligatory for the complainant alone to carry the material. For this reasons the appeal is without any basis and is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the order dated 14.08.2012 as passed by the District Forum Jodhpur 1, Jodhpur in complaint case No. 496 of 2008 is upheld and the appeal as preferred by the appellant is dismissed. The amount as deposited by the appellant be given to the complainant along with accrued interest."

None appears on behalf of the respondent. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have carefully gone through the records of the case.

LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Fora below grossly erred in coming to the conclusion that as per the circular of the department, there was an option available with the department to have charged a sum of Rs. 1500/ - from the consumer and delivered the requisite material at the site of the complainant, without appreciating in the first instance in this regard it was the categorical case of the department that reminders had been issued to the complainant time and again to have the requisite material delivered at the site for the grant of the connection, to which there was no response by the consumer.

ACCORDINGLY , till the department have received the clear instructions from the complainant then it could go ahead and charge Rs. 1500/ - and have the material delivered on its own, the department could not have acted on its own in this regard. The Fora failed to appreciate that once it was not the case of the consumer in the complaint below, that it was desirous of getting the electricity connection as is clearly apparent from the prayer made by the complainant in the complaint below as also to the effect that it was simply interested in claiming damages, then there was no reasons whatsoever for the Fora below to have passed the impugned order without appreciating that it was not obligatory for the department to have acted on its own and to proceed to deliver the requisite material at the site of the complainant, without first getting a no objection from the complainant in this regard.

IN any event, the Fora below failed to appreciate that as per the agricultural connection guidelines (2004) (as amended) it was clearly stipulated in clause 16(i) thereof that "it shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure the supply of pole and other requisite material for extension of the HT/LT Line from the office of the Assistant Engineer to the well of the consumer as also for the setting up sub -station DP".

WE note that the District Forum and the State Commission have allowed the complaint of the respondent after going through the circular dated 09.04.2008 which was Exhibit R5 wherein it was clearly stipulated at serial No. 4 that the charges for carrying the requisite material for the grant of agricultural connection would be borne by the department and for this purpose, an additional charge of Rs. 1500/ - would be so levied and in case the said carriage was to be effected by the complainant himself then no charges would be levied upon him. From the aforesaid it was evident that there was no obligation for the complainant alone to carry the material. The petitioner, for inexplicable reasons, has not filed the entire copy of the circular but only chosen to file an extract of Serial No. 16 which supports their case. They have further admitted in the revision petition that there was no option available with the department to charge a sum of Rs. 1500/ - from the consumer and delivered the requisite material at the site of the complainant. They have further defended their stand by stating that a number of letters had been issued to the respondent. Petitioner did not receive any clear instructions from the respondent that it could go ahead and charge Rs. 1500/ - and have the material delivered on its own. Hence, the department could not have acted on its own in this regard. This explanation is not acceptable. This fact was not mentioned in the reply before the District Forum. They have also chosen not to file letters allegedly sent to the respondent in this regard. Nor have they filed the order for reconnection and demand letter for deposit of Rs. 4850/ - for reconnection. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had brought to the notice of the respondent that he should either transport the required material to the site or pay the department Rs. 1500/ - to enable them to do so. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner department had sanctioned and issued the reconnection order vide order No. 472/43 dated 17.11.2007 and sent the order to the Executive Engineer Bhilara and they have also received an amount of Rs. 4850/ - as per the demand notice dated 13.11.2007 for reconnection. Thereafter there is no acceptable explanation as to why reconnection order was not carried out on the pretext that the respondent did not carry the meter fitted transformer and other materials to the site.

IN view of the facts above it is clear that as per the rules and regulations the respondent was entitled to reconnection of electricity. It was sanctioned by the petitioner after accepting Rs. 4850/ - in November, yet they failed to provide the reconnection and have depriving the respondent of the facility of electricity and irrigation allegedly for a paltry amount of Rs. 1500/ - for carrying the material to the site. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner brought this requirement to the notice of the respondent.

THE Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mrs Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., : 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed: "Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21(b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora."

Thus, we find that no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown to us in the impugned order to call for interference in the exercise of powers under Section 21(b) of Act. The order of the State Commission does not call for any interference nor does it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity. Thus, the present revision petition is hereby, dismissed with no order as to cost. Further, if the connection has not been restored the petitioner may take necessary action to do so within a month.