SHRI D.K.CHOPRA vs SUSHEEM PANDEY

PETITIONER has filed this revision petition against order dated 22.11.2006 passed by Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ?State Commission?) vide which, it partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner.

BRIEF facts are that petitioner/complainant is a registered consumer with BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. having electric connection K. No.5VK7018159966. It is alleged that officials of respondent/ opposite party played some mischief with his meter on 24.5.2005, as a result of which petitioner started receiving inflated bills. He made several complaints to the officials of respondent to get the meter tested and revise the demand on the basis of actual consumption. Despite repeated complaints, no action was taken by the officials of the respondent. Petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.50/- for testing of the meter on 5.9.2005, but his meter was not tested and staff of respondent adjusted the meter reading. Petitioner has sought directions to the respondent to withdraw its demand generated vide bill dated 14.3.2006 for the sum of Rs.7841.77 and revise it on the basis of actual consumption to be recorded on a defect free meter. Petitioner has sought Rs.20 lakh as compensation for mental agony, inconvenience and hardship and Rs.11,000/- as legal expenses. Respondent in its reply, justified the demand on the ground that it was raised on the basis of actual consumption as shown in the meter. Further, the meter was tested and was found to be OK. Respondent has denied tampering of the meter by its staff. According to respondent, only phase was changed and change of phase would not in any way affect the recording of consumption in the meter.

District Forum, vide order dated 3.10.2006 held the respondent/opposite party to be deficient in service towards the petitioner and guilty of unfair trade practice, directed it to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner as compensation for mental and physical torture and causing inconvenience.

NOT satisfied with the decision of District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before State Commission. Vide impugned order, State Commission partly allowed the appeal and directed the respondent to treat the units of 10.8.2005 to the maximum units shown for subsequent period which was 276 for the month of November, 2005. Instead of raising bill for 404 units on 10.8.2005, respondent shall raise bill only for 276 units. Rest of the order was maintained. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that State Commission has restricted the correction of bills for the month of June and July, 2005 only whereas, it ought to have directed the correction of bills upto 29.9.2005 and the compensation awarded is too inadequate since electricity remained disconnected for the number of days.

ON the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for respondent that District Forum has already compensated the petitioner by awarding Rs.5,000/- on account of respondent?s negligence and as such State Commission rightly did not interfere with the quantum of compensation and present revision petition, under these circumstances, is not maintainable since no legal issue is involved in this case. State Commission in its impugned order has observed ; ?On inspection the meter was found to be OK. It is pertinent to mention that it was only the bill dated 10.8.2005 that the average monthly unit was shown as 404 whereas on earlier point of time, say in the bill dated 15.4.2005 and 13.5.2006 the units were shown as 116 and 123 and after 10.8.2005 the average monthly units were shown to 213 to 276 units. It appears that this aspect has not been taken into consideration by the District Forum while returning the findings that the meter on testing was found to be OK.? Both the fora below have given concurrent findings of facts that on inspection, the meter of the petitioner was found to be OK. Accordingly, the State Commission ordered that respondent instead of raising bills for 404 units on 10.8.2005 should raise bill only for 276 units. No infirmity or illegality can be found with this direction.

IT is well settled that scope of revision under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is very limited and on this point, we refer to the latest judgment of Hon?ble Supreme Court Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011 (3) Scale 654, wherein it has been 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.? Since, no legal issue is involved in this case, the present revision petition is not maintainable and same is hereby, dismissed.

PARTIES shall bear their own costs.