UHBVNL, "SDO" MURTHAL vs ARJAN DASS, & ORS.

This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 06.01.2017, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ''the State Commission'') in First Appeal No. 817/2016, "Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited vs. Arjan Dass & Anr.", vide which, while dismissing the appeals, the order dated 08.08.2016, passed by the District Forum Sonepat in consumer complaint No. 325/2015, filed by the present respondent No. 1 Arjan Das, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

The facts of the case are that Arjan Das complainant/respondent No. 1 who is an agriculturist, stated in his consumer complaint that he approached the Opposite Parties (OPs) for release of electricity connection for running tube-well under their Self-execution Scheme. The complainant is stated to have paid 70,000/- to opposite party-2 (OP-2) Rajkumar, Assistant Lineman (ALM) of respondent No. 1 and OP-3 Rajesh, Contractor and they assured him that the connection will be released. The said amount was paid to OP-2 & 3 in the presence of other farmers and villagers, but they did not provide him any receipt for the same. However, OP-2 & 3 installed poles, wires, transformers and supplied electricity to the tube-well of the complainant, but they did not install any electric meter, neither they gave any account number to the complainant. The complainant approached the OPs for regularisation of the connection, but to no avail. Alleging that the OPs had threatened to disconnect the electricity supply, the complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking regularisation of his electricity connection.

In the reply filed by OP-1 UHBVNL & OP-2 Raj Kumar (ALM), it was stated that the complainant had not deposited any amount with them and hence, the question of providing any receipt did not arise at all. The OPs also stated that the complainant never moved an application for electricity connection, nor deposited the security amount for the same. The OP-3, Rajesh was not the authorised contractor of the respondent corporation and hence, was not competent to install any poles, wires, transformers, etc. and to provide the electric supply. Since the connection given to the complainant was illegal, there was no question of installing any electricity meter etc. The OP-1 & 2 requested that the consumer complaint should be dismissed.

The District Forum after considering the averments of the parties, arrived at the conclusion that there had been deficiency in service on the part of the respondents/OPs. The District Forum observed that no item could be issued from the store of UHBVNL, until and unless some amount for the release of the same is deposited with them. Without the deposit of the amount, it was not possible to get installed poles, wires, transformers, etc. for the supply of electricity to the tube-well of the complainant. The District Forum held that the OP-2 & 3 had taken 20,000/- from the complainant and got installed the poles, wires, transformers etc. and provided the electric connection to him. They directed the OPs not to disconnect the electric supply and to regularise the electricity connection. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, OP-1 UHBVNL challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission observed in their order as follows:-

"7. There is no denying the fact that the transformer was issued from the store of the UHBVNL. The consumer/complainant cannot know as to whether the J.E., who is an official of the UHBVNL, was acting under the instructions or in violation of the instructions of his superiors. The fact that J.E. got the transformer issued from the store of UHBVNL and got installed it on the poles and connected the connection, is not disputed. So, the complainant was not to be blamed for it. Shri Sandeep Sikri, S.D.O. who is present in person, confirmed the installation of transformer on poles in the fields of the complainant and even the connection being released; though he states that it is an unauthorized release of connection. A photograph (Annexure-1) with respect to erection of poles and installation of transformer has been placed on the file, which supports the case of complainant-respondent No.1.

Having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence available on the record, the impugned order does not require any interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits."

It is clear from the order of the State Commission that Shri Sandeep Sikri, SDO of the petitioner/appellant who was present in person before the State Commission, confirmed the installation of transformer on poles in the fields of the complainant and even the connection being released. The State Commission also observed that the Junior Engineer (JE) of the petitioner/complainant got the transformer issued form the store of UHBVNL and got it installed on the poles and provided the connection, and hence, the complainant was not to be blamed for the same. The State Commission dismissed the appeal vide impugned order. Being aggrieved against the order of the State Commission, the petitioner UHBVNL is before us by way of the present revision petition.

At the time of admission hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the UHBVNL stated that the complainant never made any application to them for the regularisation of the connection, neither deposited any money with the petitioner. The learned counsel stated that for the wrong doing of their employees, they had already taken action against them. The petitioner had filed an FIR against Jasbir Puniya, Jr. Engineer (JE) and initiated appropriate proceedings against him. They had also initiated legal proceedings against Rajesh Contractor. The learned counsel vehemently argued that the orders passed by the consumer fora below should be set aside, because the connection given to the complainant was illegal.

In the memo of the revision petition, the petitioner themselves have admitted that the complainant/respondent No. 1 applied for a tube-well electric connection in the year 2011 with sanctioned load of 12.5 KW. While applying for the temporary electric connection, the complainant deposited 150/- as processing charges and 600/- towards consumption security with the petitioner. As per protocol, the complainant was supposed to pay the cost of transformer, wiring and other essentials, but he did not make any payment towards the same except that mentioned above. On 08.06.2016, the petitioner floated Amnesty Scheme for regularisation of tube-well connection released under the Self-execution scheme.

The complainant met OP-2 Assistant Lineman of the petitioner and OP-3 Contractor for the release of connection under the Amnesty Scheme, but did not submit any appropriate application for the same. The petitioner admitted that the transformer was installed at the premises of the respondent by their J.E. Jasbir Puniya, acting in connivance with Rajesh Contractor for which an FIR had been registered by them against both these persons. The petitioners prayed that the order passed by the State Commission should be set aside, because the complainant was acting in connivance with Rajesh Contractor who was not their authorised contractor. Moreover, the complainant had not made any application to them for the release of the said connection, neither paid any money to them.

From the sequence of events as narrated by the petitioner themselves, it is clear that their own employees including a Junior Engineer, were responsible for the installation of poles, wiring, transformer etc. on the premises of the complainant and also for the release of the electric connection. The said position has been confirmed by their own Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Sandeep Sikri, who was present in person before the State Commission. The petitioners have also admitted that an application for obtaining a temporary connection alongwith the necessary fee was deposited in their office in the year 2011 itself. However, the complainant had neither made application for regularisation of the connection, nor paid any money in their office. It is made out, from the facts stated above, that the contention of the complainant that he paid a sum of 70,000/- to OP-2 who is an employee of the petitioner and Rajesh Contractor, cannot be disbelieved. It is quite clear that these persons alongwith the Junior Engineer (In charge) got the transformer etc. issued from the store of the petitioner, made the necessary installations and provided electric connection to the complainant. It goes without saying that for doing all this, they must have accepted the necessary amount from the complainant. In the light of these facts, it is very clear that the employees of the petitioner have indulged in malpractice, for which, the petitioner have initiated legal proceedings against them. However, the complainant does not deserve to be put to any hardship on account of the misdeeds of the employees of the petitioner. It is the duty of the petitioner, therefore, to take remedial action for the regularisation of the electric connection by getting the necessary formalities completed from the complainant by following the required procedure.

It is also borne out from the facts on record that the petitioner themselves had initiated an Amnesty Scheme 2016 for the regularisation of tube-well connections released under the Self-execution Scheme. It is clear, therefore, that the intention was to regularise the connections released earlier by getting the necessary formalities completed. It is not understood, therefore, as to why the petitioners seek to penalise the complainant for the admitted fault of their own employees.

Both the consumer fora below have given their concurrent findings in favour of the complainant and directed the regularisation of electric connection in favour of the complainant. It is a settled legal proposition that the scope of interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction is limited. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in their order in " Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269], " stated categorically that powers in revisional jurisdiction should be exercised only, if there is a jurisdictional error or material defect in the orders passed by the fora below. In the instant case, we do not find any such infirmity, illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the consumer fora below. It is held, therefore, that the present revision petition is without any merit and the same is ordered to be dismissed in limini and the orders passed by the Consumer Fora below are upheld. There shall be no order as to costs.