Copy of the office order dated 31.5.2007 referred to in the  impugned order and the Power of attorney executed by remaining three respondents in favour of the respondent – Bhom Singh in R.P. No. 2139 of 2010 be taken on file.

          This order will dispose of these four Revision petitions arising out of the same order dated 12.3.2010 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)  whereby First Appeals no. 103 of 2009, 104 of 2009, 105 of 2009 & 1065 of 2009 filed against similar order dated 23.4.2009 of a District Forum were partly allowed and the award of compensation of Rs.5,000/- as ordered by the District Forum to each of the respondents/complainants was set aside and rest of the order was upheld. The District forum had allowed the complaints quashing the disputed notice(s) issued by the petitioner/opposite party – Corporation and directed the regularization of excess load of the respondents as per the office order of the Corporation dated 31.5.2007, pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and the cost.

          Only few facts need be noticed for deciding these Revision petitions.  Electricity Load sanctioned by the petitioners to Babu Lal – respondent was 30 HP, to Bhom Singh –respondent was 42.5 HP, to Binja Ram – respondent was 17.5 HP and to Ammu Ram –respondent was 20 HP. On 21.9.2007 vigilance checking was done and 37.5 HP, 65.55 HP, 22.5 HP & 28.76 HP excess load beyond  the sanctioned load was found to be used by the said respondents respectively for which demand of Rs.36,450/-, Rs.1,18,814/-, Rs.24,300 & 46,832/- was raised. In the complaint, quashment of this demand and other reliefs were sought by the respondents which was contested by the petitioner – Corporation. Order passed by fora below notices that the petitioner –Corporation had issued order dated 31.5.2007 whereby Assistant/Junior Engineers of the Vigilance Department were directed  to check the electricity load of all the agriculture connections in their area and without VCR checking report and intimation in writing of the excess load was to be given and without charging any penalty such excess load was to be regularized. This order was to remain in force from 01.6.2007 to 31.8.2007. Fora below had returned the finding that if the Assistant/Junior Engineers would have checked the electricity load of the respondents before 31.8.2007, they would have found the excess load used by them and that could have been regularized, if the Engineers had committed negligence in not visiting the sites of respondents, the respondents could not be penalized.  In this backdrop, the order to the said effect came to be  passed by the District Forum which has been slightly modified by the State Commission as noticed above. Having heard Shri S.N. Bohra for the petitioner – Corporation and having considered the aforesaid office order dated 31.5.2007, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of State Commission calling for interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petitions are, therefore, dismissed.  No order as to cost.