1.      The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section ­­­58(1)((b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the “Act”) against impugned order dated 16.07.2020, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (‘‘State Commission’) in FA No. 240 of 2019. In this Appeal, the Respondent /OP appeal was allowed, thereby set aside the Order dated 14.02.2019, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shree Ganga Nagar (“District Forum”) in CC No. 53 of 2017, wherein the Complaint was allowed.

2.      There was a delay of 133 days in filing the present Revision Petition. In the interest of justice, the same is condoned.

3.      For convenience, the parties in the present matter are denoted as per their positions in the Consumer Complaint before the District Forum. The Complainant (Petitioner herein) is a Proprietor of M/s. Naveen Oil & Ginning Factory set up an oil ginning factory for earning livelihood for himself and his family. Meanwhile, Asstt. Engineer, Jodhpur, Electricity Distribution Corporation Ltd. is identified as OP (Respondent herein) in the present matter.

4.      Brief facts, as per the Complainant, are that he is Proprietor of M/s. Naveen Oil & Ginning Factory. He initially obtained a 350KV electricity connection from the OP Corporation, designated as the Assistant Engineer, Jodhpur, Electricity Distribution Corporation Ltd., with the account number 3-1-0026, for his factory operations. Subsequently, due to the removal of some machinery from the factory premises, on 03.07.2013 he sought for reduction of electricity load from 350KV to 225KV. Despite the application, on 02.09.2013, the OP Corporation, in contravention of departmental rules, issued a demand notice of Rs.1,000/-. Despite this notice, the load was not reduced, prompting further correspondence with the OP. Multiple letters were sent by the OP to Complainant on 13.09.2013, 25.10.2013, 06.12.2013, and 02.01.2014. Despite depositing Form-L as required, his load was not reduced, and additional demands for Rs.100/- stamp papers were made. The Complainant submitted the required stamp papers also, yet, for over three and a half years, the load of the electric connection remained unchanged. As a result, the Complainant filed CC No. 53 of 2017 before the District Forum, seeking immediate reduction of the load from the application date, along with financial compensation of Rs.50,000/- for financial losses incurred, Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.20,000/- for travelling expenses, and Rs.50,000/- towards litigation costs.

5.      In response, the OP Corporation acknowledged that they had indeed requested the Complainant to provide the necessary L Form as per the rules. However, they asserted that the Complainant, at the time of applying to the OP for load reduction, failed to furnish complete documents as required by the rules and neglected to deposit the requisite fees. Additionally, the Complainant did not sign the stamp agreement document, thereby failing to fulfill the necessary formalities for reducing the load from 350KW to 225KW. Consequently, the Corporation argued that the responsibility for completing these formalities rested with the Complainant, and they denied any liability in this regard.

6.      The District Forum, in its Order dated 14.02.2019, ruled in favor of the Complaint directing the OP to reduce the electricity load of the Complainant within one month and adjust the electricity bill of the Complainant from 08.03.2014, the date on which the stamp paper was submitted to the OP, to reflect the reduced load of 225 KV. Additionally, the OP was directed to pay Rs.15,000/- along with 9% interest as compensation for mental agony and litigation costs.

7.      Being aggrieved by the Order dated 14.02.2009 passed by the District Forum, the Respondent/ OP filed Appeal No. 240 of 2019 and the State Commission vide order dated 16.07.2020, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum, thereby dismissed the Complaint, with the following reasons/findings:-

“It is clear from the above said three letters written by appellant corporation to complainant respondent that appellant corporation has stated to complainant / respondent to complete the proceedings of agreement before the executive engineer. Complainant I respondent has submitted typed agreement on Rs.100/- stamp paper before the ' appellant corporation but till complainant / respondent put his signature on the agreement by appearing himself in the office of appellant corporation, there is no importance of written agreement on Rs.100/­- stamp paper. Meaning thereby in spite of letters written thrice by appellant corporation to complainant respondent failed to appear before executive engineer electricity department for agreement. In these circumstances formalities for reducing the load from 350 KW to 225 KW were not completed.

Learned District Forum has written in his impugned order that appellant corporation has not written in the letter that stamp paper be submitted after putting signature in the office. As per the opinion of commission agreement will be treated complete when it bears the signature of both the parties. There is no importance of typed agreement on Rs.100/- stamp paper without signatures. Since there is no signature of complainant/respondent on agreement meaning thereby no agreement was executed & on account of this reason load could not be reduced from 350 KW to 225 KW, so no deficiency in services can be accepted. Deficiency in service could have been accepted only when load was not reduced when there is signature of both the parties on agreement. In these circumstances after considering the facts of the case appeal is liable to be allowed & impugned 'order of Learned Distt. Forum is liable to be set aside.

Therefore appeal is allowed & order of learned District Forum is set aside.” (Extracted from True Translated Copy)

8.      Being dissatisfied by the Impugned Order dated 16.07.2020 passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner/Complainant filed the instant Revision Petition mainly raised the following grounds:

1. The State Commission overlooked that officers of respondent demanded illegal gratification from him and threatened him with unnecessary deficiencies in his application, resulting in no reduction in electricity load and higher electricity bills.
2. The State Commission failed to note that after accepting the form for reducing the electricity load, the OP continuously sought additional details without comprehensive list of formalities required, causing confusion and hindrance to him.
3. The State Commission neglected to consider the sequence of events wherein the respondent initially requested Form-L, then demanded Rs. 100/- stamp paper, subsequently disconnected the electricity connection, and finally alleged that the petitioner had not signed the stamp paper. These circumstances indicate the respondent's malicious intent to harass the petitioner.

9.      In his arguments, the learned Counsel for Petitioner reiterated the grounds of the petition and asserted the established facts of the case. He contended that the Petitioner has consistently cooperated with OP at every stage, yet the OP continuously created obstacles for him, indicating negligence on their part. Moreover, he highlighted the fact that the OP assertion that the Petitioner had not signed the stamp paper demonstrates negligence and deficiency in service by the OP, as it is the responsibility of the OP to verify the documents at the time of submission.

10.    The learned Counsel for the Respondent/OP argued that the Complainant failed to provide complete documents and prescribed fee as per rules while submitting the application for reducing load of his electric connection. Additionally, due to the non-execution of the agreement by not signing the agreement on stamp paper, it was impossible for OP department to reduce the electric connection load of the Complainant as per rules. Further, it was asserted that the State Commission correctly allowed the appeal of the OP by noting that “It is clear from the aid three letters written by the appellant corporation to complainant respondent …… for reducing the load from 350KW to 225KW were not completed”. Therefore, considering the aforementioned circumstances, the Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed outright.

11.    Heard the Learned Counsel for both the parties. Perused the entire material on record inter-alia Orders of both the fora.

12.    The primary issue for determination is whether the OP Electricity Distribution Corporation acted negligently and was deficient in service by failing to reduce the electricity load of the Complainant.

13.    It is undisputed that on multiple occasions, the OP corporation notified the Complainant to complete the stipulated procedure of signing an agreement before the Executive Engineer of the OP. while the Complainant submitted a typed agreement on Rs.100/- stamp paper, he failed to appear before the competent authority to put his signature on the agreement. Therefore, mere forwarding of the stamp paper without appearing himself in the office of the Executive Engineer was infructuous. This was persisted in spite of letters communications by the OP Corporation to the Complainant. Therefore, the necessary procedures for reducing the load from 350 KW to 225 KW remained incomplete from the Complainant side. Evidently, mere submission of a typed agreement on Rs.100/- stamp paper without signatures has limited meaning, unless duly executed. Thus, no agreement was executed between the parties and for this reason the load could not be reduced from 350 KW to 225 KW. In these circumstances, there is no deficiency in services that can be attributed to the OP corporation on this account. If there was unreasonable delay in reducing the load even after completion of all necessary formalities, including execution of the stamp paper, then deficiency in service could have been accepted.

14.    Based on the discussion above, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is dismissed Consequently, the impugned Order passed by the State Commission is upheld. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs.

15.    All other pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of.