Delay condoned. -2- Challenge in this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), is to the order dated 18.05.2017, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Panchkula (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No.552 of 2016. By the impugned order, the State Commission has set aside the order dated 29.04.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No.144 of 2012 and allowed the Appeal preferred by the Complainant with direction to the Opposite Parties to provide fresh electricity connection in the name of the legal heirs of the Complainant for running tube well within a period of two months from the date of the order. The brief facts, as set out in the Complaint, are that the Complainant applied for a tube well connection on 04.09.2008 and paid the requisite amount in the second Opposite Party office. Thereafter, the Complainant requested the Opposite Parties several times regarding issuance of the electric connection for the tube well but received no response. An RTI Application was filed seeking information about the issuance of tube well connection in Village Mallikpur after 04.09.2008 and the Complainant was informed that the connection was issued to other farmers ignoring the Application of the Complainant. Hence, the Complaint seeking direction to the Opposite Parties to issue the tube well connection and also pay ₹50,000/- towards compensation and other costs. The Opposite Parties filed their Written Version stating that the Complainant is not a “Consumer” as the services were availed for commercial purpose; that reconnection of electricity can only be done if 100% assessed amount is deposited by the Consumer; that a sum of ₹3,05,894/- was outstanding against the said tube well connection and -3- a new tube well connection cannot be released till the outstanding payment is made. The District Forum based on the evidence adduced dismissed the Complaint observing that the land in question was purchased in the year 1996 and the arrears of ₹3,05,894/- pertained to the period prior to the date of the said Sale Deed and that the Complainant is liable to deposit the same with the Opposite Parties. Therefore, no fresh connection can be released on the purchased land where supply had been disconnected due to non-payment of outstanding dues. Aggrieved by the said order, the Complainant preferred Appeal No.550 of 2016 before the State Commission. The State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum observing as follows: “13. In our view, Chamel Singh, who was simply a co-sharer in the total joint land measuring 144 Kanals-6 Marlas, had obtained an electricity connection and he did not make payment of the electricity bills. Findings cannot be given that other co-sharers in the same joint land cannot install separate tubewell and cannot obtain separate electricity connection. Just as Chamel Singh was entitled to obtain the electricity connection in his name in the same way, the complainant also became entitled to install a new tubewell and to obtain a new electricity connection in his name after purchase of a share in the joint land. Chamel Singh and other co-shares have no objection of any type if the electricity connection is provided to the complainant. At the cost of repetition, we want to make it clear that the complainant does not want restoration of the electricity connection which was earlier provided to Chamel Singh and the complainant has not purchased the land from Chamel Singh for which he installed his new tubewell and he wants separate electricity connection. During the course of arguments, there was no controversy of any type that the complainant has installed a separate tubewell and he has not applied for providing electricity connection on the same tubewell which was installed by Chamel Singh. Moreover, technicalities cannot be allowed to stand in the way of natural justice. Findings in such matters should not be based merely on technicalities. On this point, learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties has placed reliance upon -4- a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in cse law Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Vs. DVS Steels & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. AIR 2009 SC 647. 14. Cited Case law Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Vs. DVS Steels & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. & Ors (Supra) is of no help to the Opposite Parties as in the case in hand, the Complainant did not purchase the land as well as tubewell from the previous consumer Chamel Singh. The Complainant purchased share of Jarnail Singh, another co-sharer in the joint land and installed his separate tubewell therein. 15. In these circumstances, findings can be safely given that it is not a case of restoration of the earlier electricity connection provided in the name of Chamel Singh. The complainant is entitled to obtain electricity connection in his name as prayed in the complaint. Learned District Forum has committed an error while giving findings in this Complaint in favour of the Opposite Parties.” Dissatisfied with the order of the State Commission, the second Opposite Party preferred this Revision Petition. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that until the electricity service was factually made available to the Complainant, he cannot be said to be a “Consumer”. He further added that the dues of ₹3,05,894/- was not paid and therefore, the electricity connection was not given. The Petitioners have relied on Clause 4.3.1 of the Sales Circular which is reproduced as under: “4.3.1 Purchase of existing property Where the applicant has purchased an existing property, whose supply has been disconnected, it shall be the applicant’s duty to verify that the previous owner has paid all dues to the licensee and obtained a “no-dues certificate” has not been obtained by the previous owner, the applicant shall request the previous owner to obtain a no dues certificate from the licensee and handover the same to him. on receipt of such request from the previous owner, the licensee shall either intimate in writing the dues outstanding on the premises, if any, or issue a “no-dues certificate: within thirty (30) days from date of receipt of request. If the licensee does not issue the no dues certificate or dispatch a letter intimating the dues to the previous owner within thirty (30) days of receipt of his request, the applicant shall be absolved of any liability on account of dues against the -5- previous owner and the licensee shall have to seek legal recourse separately against the previous owner for recovery of such dues. In case the licensee dispatches a letter intimating the dues to the previous owner within thirty (30) days of receipt of his request and in case there are not deposited by the previous owner, the applicant shall be liable to clear any dues against the previous owner before a new connection is released in his favour. If however, subsequently at any stage, the audit points out any additional amount due on account of period of the previous owner, it shall be the liability of the new consumer to pay such amount”. The facts and circumstances of the case are different since the question of No Due Certificate does not arise as the Complainant did not purchase the agricultural land from Mr. Chamel Singh, but from Mr.Jarnail Singh, who are both co-sharers in the total land measuring 144 Kanals-6 Marlas. It is observed from the record that one Mr.Chamel Singh was a co-sharer in the total joint land measuring 144 Kanals-6 Marlas who obtained an electricity connection against which the Petitioner raised dues of ₹3,05,894/-. To reiterate, it is pertinent to note that the Complainant purchased the land from one Mr. Jarnail Singh who is another co-sharer in the joint land and has nothing to do with the land belonging to Mr. Chamel Singh. It is not the Complainant’s case that he wants restoration of the electricity connection which was earlier provided to Chamel Singh, but in fact, he seeks a separate electricity connection for his tube well. Therefore, the act of the Opposite Party in clubbing the two and denying the Complainant electricity connection for his tube well on the ground that there are outstanding dues against one Mr. Chamel Singh which has nothing to do with the Complainant herein, is totally unjustified. The State Commission has also not awarded compensation or costs for the delay caused by the Petitioner Department in issuing the -6- tube well connection. The State Commission has only allowed the Appeal with the direction to the Opposite Parties to provide new electricity connection in the name of the legal heirs of deceased Dharam Singh, the Complainant, within a period of two months from the date of its order. As the Application was made way back in the year 2008, and more than nine years have lapsed, I find it to be a fit case to dismiss the Revision Petition with costs of ₹5,000/-. Costs shall be remitted directly to the LRs of the Complainant within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. For all the afore-noted reasons, the Revision Petition is dismissed accordingly. In view of the fact that the Revision Petition has been dismissed, IA Nos.17878 and 17880 of 2017 are rendered infructuous and disposed of accordingly. | 
