1. The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against Respondent as detailed above, under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 11.02.2021 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P., Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No.1707 of 1999 in which order dated 03.05.1999 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ghazipur (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 93/1997 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order & judgment dated 11.02.2021 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 1707/1999. 2. While the Revision Petitioners (hereinafter also referred to as complainants) were Respondents and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Respondent/OP) was Appellant in the said FA/1707/1999 before the State Commission the Revision Petitioners were Complainants and Respondent was OP before the District Commission in the CC No.93/1007. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 10.03.2022. Petitioners filed their written Arguments/ Synopsis on 13.01.2023. Respondents have not filed their written synopsis. 3. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that:- (i) On 31.10.1979, the father of the Petitioners got the boring done on the land and applied for electricity connection along with requisite fees. The Respondent issued a receipt for the same to the petitioners’ father. On 16.10.1980 the respondent surveyed the spot and prepared the survey statement for which the petitioners’ father paid the expenses. After completing all the formalities, it was fixed to provide the electricity connection to the petitioners’ father and the respondent buried the poles on the spot. After that neither the wires were drawn and nor any connection was provided to the petitioners’ father. Nor any pumping set was installed or operated by the respondent and nor any electricity has been utilized. The petitioners’ father complained continuously for the same with the respondent but as they were facing problems regarding farming. The father of the petitioners complained with the higher Authority about the electricity connection and also informed about the illegal money demanded by the respondent’s employees on which the respondent’s employees threatened him. (ii) The respondent issued a demand letter to the petitioners’ father and without providing any electricity connection, a bill was raised showing fake documents about the electricity connection in their records whereas no electricity connection was provided and no electricity was consumed by the petitioners’ father. No bill other than recovery letter has been issued by the respondent. In response to the above recovery letter, the petitioners’ father sent letter dated 27.11.1986, 28.07.1987 and on 05.01.1992. The father of the petitioners died on 02.06.1992 and thereafter, the petitioners requested the respondent to give proper connection after drawing proper wires on the spot and to end the electricity bill demanded by the respondent but the respondent did not care and did not provide the electricity connection. The respondent’s employees instead demanded 1/4th of the recovery amount with a promise that the petitioners’ documents will be rectified and proper connection will be provided on the spot. On 27.12.1993, Suresh Singh S/o late Sh. Hari Narayan Singh gave a letter to the respondent requesting for waving of the bill as electricity connection was never given to them and requesting for connection. Again on 08.10.1994, 23.02.1996, 01.03.1997, 31.03.1997 and on 07.05.1997, letters were sent to the Electricity Department requesting that the since the pole has fallen, electricity connection is not there and bill is continuing to come, the fake bill be waved off and connection be given. Hence, the Complainants filed complaint before the District Forum. 4. Vide Order dated 03.05.1999, in the CC No. 93 of 1997 the District Forum accepted the complaint and directed the OP to install the electric connection wire on the pumping set of the complainants within a period of one month from the date of order. The OP is not entitled to get any earlier amount in respect of the alleged electricity connection of the pumping set and accordingly the demand letter given by the OP in respect of the said electricity connection is cancelled. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 03.05.1999 of District Forum, Respondent appealed in State Commission. Vide order dated 11.02.2021 the State Commission accepted the Appeal FA No.1707 of 1999 and set aside the decision and order passed by the District Forum and dismissed the complaint being not maintainable. 5. Petitioners have challenged the said Order dated 11.02.2021 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:- (i) the impugned order is illegal, unsustainable in law and is therefore liable to be set aside. The State Commission did not apply its judicial mind before passing the impugned order. The impugned order is contrary to the facts and evidence available with the annexure on record. (ii) The negligence and deficiency in services on the part of the Respondent is proved by the petitioner before the District Forum and State Commission erred in accepting the appeal. (iii) State Commission failed to consider the fact that the respondents did not provide the electricity connection to the petitioners, in spite of number of representations given by the petitioners’ father. The State Commission failed to consider the fact that the electricity connection was not given at the proposed site but demand letter for depositing the electricity amount was sent to the petitioners by the respondent. The State Commission failed to consider the fact that no electricity has been consumed by the petitioners as no connection was provided to them. (iv) State Commission failed to consider the fact that the order and judgment passed by the District Forum is just and fair. The State Commission failed to consider the fact that the respondent had not filed any evidence which proves that they have given an electricity connection to the petitioners or their father. (v) the impugned order is passed in haste as an application for deleting the name of Suresh Singh was filed before the State Commission but was not taken into consideration which clearly establishes non-application of mind in passing the impugned order. 6. Heard counsel for the Petitioners. None appeared on behalf of the Respondent. On the previous dates also none appeared for the Respondent. Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments by the petitioners and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below. 7. During the arguments, the Petitioners in addition to repeating what has been stated under the grounds, under para 7 above, contended that the petitioners’ father had ample land for farming but in the absence of sources of irrigation, they were unable to do proper farming, so the petitioners’ father conceived the idea of installing pumping sets to smoothly manage irrigation equipment and other agriculture related works. Petitioners’ father got the boring done on the land applied for the electricity connection alongwith the requisite fees. The respondent issued a receipt for the same to the petitioners’father. After the application, the respondent surveyed the spot and prepared the survey statement for which the petitioners’ father paid the expenses. After completing the formalities it was fixed to provide the electricity connection to the petitioners’ father and the respondent buried the poles on the spot. After that neither the wires were drawn till date and nor any connection was provided to them. The petitioners’ father complained continuously for the same with the respondent but as they were facing problems regarding farming, complained with the Higher Authority about the electricity connection and also informed about the illegal money demanded by the respondent’s employees on which the respondent’s employees threatened him. The respondent issued demand letter without providing any electricity connection, a bill was raised showing fake documents about the electricity connection in their records whereas no electricity connection was provided and no electricity was consumed by the petitioner’s father. The Petitioners’ father and after the death of their father the petitioners sent repeated requests through letters for electricity connection and waving off the electricity bill which has been raised without providing any electricity connection at their site. 8. However, the Respondent neither appeared nor have filed their written arguments. They had contended before the State Commission that the father of complainants had applied for an electricity connection in 1979 which was not released and hence the complaint against this non-release of connection was filed as late as in the year 1997 i.e. almost about the lapse of 18 years. The District Forum has erred in entertaining the complaint which is barred by time and was not supported by any explanation for this delay. The OP contended that the connection had been given to father of complainants in the year 1981. The OP had issued the notice for recovery of dues to complainants father (died in 1982) on 25.12.1983 then on 28.11.1988 and then 12.01.1991 but none of these notices were challenged by complainants and no step was taken by them in this regard. 9. We have also gone through the orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission and also perused the material on record. A perusal of order of the State Commission show that no written statement or evidence has been presented before the District Forum on behalf of Electricity Department. Hence, the District Forum passed the order based on evidences of the complainants. State Commission has not given any valid reasons for setting aside the order of the District Forum. The State Commission has given its findings on the basis of recovery notice issued by the concerned Tahsildar. It is not clear from the record available that the connection was actually provided to the complainants or not. It is also not proved that the recovery notices sent to the complainants are actually for the connection provided to the complainants or not. In view of the above, we find merit in the contentions of the Petitioners. Consumer Protection Act being a beneficial legislation, benefit of ambiguity/doubt needs to go to the Consumer. The respondents have not appeared before this Commission to put forward their case/contentions and establish that connection was actually given and their recovery notices are justified. 10. In view of the above, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order passed by the State Commission is set aside and the order passed by the District Forum is upheld. 11. The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off. | 
