APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS
 

PRONOUNCED ON:      31^st    July  2017

ORDER

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

          This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 04.08.2015, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in Appeal No. 246/2014, Hanuman Prasad Meena vs. Chief Engineer, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Urban & Ors., vide which, while allowing the said appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur-IV, dated 02.09.2013,  in  Consumer Complaint No. 1165/2013, filed by the present respondent Hanuman Prasad Meena, dismissing the said complaint, was set aside.

2.      Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent Hanuman Prasad applied for an electric connection with the opposite party (OP) Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Ltd. for his plot bearing no. B-26, Mata Vaishnopuram, Khatipura alias Kalyanpura, Jagatpura, Jaipur and made payment of an advance amount of Rs. 5,600/-.  The executives of the petitioners/opposite parties carried out the site inspection and found that there was no electrification of the colony in which the plot of the complainant was situated.  Further, after some correspondence with the complainant, the opposite party issued a letter to him for submitting a plan for the colony so that action for permanent electricity connection could be taken.  The complainant made an application for temporary connection and deposited an amount of Rs. 6,174/- with the petitioners.  A demand letter was further issued to the complainant on 20.04.2011 after adjusting the amount deposited earlier and he was asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 63,156/- for the permanent electricity connection.  According to the complainant, he had already deposited the entire amount of Rs. 5,600/- on 18.10.2010 for the said connection.  However, he deposited the amount of Rs. 63,156/- as demanded vide letter dated 21.04.2011 and he was provided a permanent electric connection.  The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, saying that electric connections were issued to some other houses  near the house of the complainant after 18.10.2010 i.e. after the date of submission of application by him and those persons were charged very less amounts of Rs. 4,100/-, 4,500/- etc. only.  The complainant sought directions to the petitioners/opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs. 63,156/- deposited by him alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and also to provide compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation in addition to the extra amount paid by him, while using the temporary connection. 

3.      The complaint was resisted by the petitioners/opposite parties by filing a written reply to the complaint, in which they denied the allegations against them, saying that the electrification of the colony, in which the permanent connection had been sought by the complainant, had not been done.  The learned counsel for the opposite party further stated in the reply as follows:-

“The persons to whom the electricity connection were provided after 18.10.2010 as alleged by the complainant had applied for electricity connection earlier on 13.08.2010 and their premises are located in the colony as stated by complainant i.e. A-Block of Mata Vaishnavpuram Colony and the then Assistant Engineer inadvertently issued connections by not getting complied formality as per Clause 6 B of Terms and Conditions for Supply of Electricity- 2004 of Vidhyut Nigam, whereas, the complainant had submitted application for electricity connection on 18.10.2010 and even then no construction work, house etc. whatsoever was found built at the spot and as per Electricity Rules, the electrification of colony of complainant not done, the amount has been got deposited from the complainant under the rules.”

4.      The District Forum, after considering the averments of the parties, dismissed the complaint, stating that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners/opposite parties and the amount charged as per the demand letter was in accordance with the terms and conditions for the supply of electricity, as adopted by the petitioners/opposite parties.  Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the complainant challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission observed that the complainant had filed documents relating to his neighbours, who were residing in the same area and had been given electric connections.  It was evident, therefore, that the electrification had already been done.  The State Commission observed as follows in their order, ‘when temporary connection is available and neighbourers have permanent electricity connections, then existence of cable, pole etc. existing there is natural’.  The State Commission allowed the appeal and directed the petitioners/opposite parties to refund the remaining amount after adjustment of amounts under rules for permanent connection alongwith interest @ 9% per annum.  Being aggrieved against the order of the State Commission, the petitioners/opposite parties are before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

5.      During arguments before me, the learned counsel for the petitioners stated that they had acted strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions adopted by them and charged the correct amount from the complainant.  The learned counsel has drawn attention to orders issued by the petitioners/opposite parties dated 25.09.2008 and 12.01.2010 and a further order on 24.03.2011, saying that the amount had been charged strictly in accordance with the orders/notifications.  However, the learned counsel admitted that some officers of the petitioners/opposite parties had wrongly charged amounts from other applicants for permanent electric connection and also issued the said connections to them.  The learned counsel, however, could not explain, whether they had taken any disciplinary action in the matter against the said officers.

6.      The authorised representative of the respondent stated that the petition had been filed with a delay of 66 days and since no sufficient cause for the delay had been explained, the petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation alone.  The Authorised Representative further stated that the respondent had obtained a temporary connection by making a payment of Rs. 6,174/-.  However, the OP Corporation had charged exorbitant amount from them for releasing the permanent connection although the other persons in the locality had been charged much less than the respondent.  The order passed by the State Commission was, therefore, in accordance with law and should be upheld.

7.      I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.

8.      The first point that requires consideration is that there is a delay of 66 days in filing the present revision petition by the petitioner.  In the application for condonation of delay, it has been stated that after the receipt of certified copy of the impugned order dated 04.08.2015, which was received on 05.08.2015, the file was sent to the legal department of the petitioner for their opinion.  On receipt of the said opinion, the file was sent to the concerned department for releasing a valid sanction for filing the petition and for appointment of a counsel.  The sanction could not be accorded due to non-availability of the staff and hence, the delay occurred in filing the petition.

9.      By no stretch of imagination, it can be stated that the petitioner Corporation has been able to provide a cogent and convincing explanation for the delay in filing the revision petition.  The excuse of shortage of staff cannot be made the ground for condoning the delay of 66 days in filing the petition.  A time of 90 days has been prescribed for filing the revision petition which is considered to be sufficient for completing the necessary formalities and filing the said petition.  I am, therefore, not inclined to condone the delay in filing the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.  I am supported in this view by an order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), in which, it was observed as follows:-

“It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for filing appeals and revisions in Consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the Consumer disputes will get defeated, if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras”.

10.    The next point for consideration is whether the amount charged for the release of the permanent electric connection from the respondent was justified or not.  The petitioner Corporation have themselves admitted during hearing before me that their officers had inadvertently released connections to other persons in the area by charging less amount.  On a pointed query as to whether the petitioner had taken any disciplinary action against the erring officials, no satisfactory reply was forthcoming from the petitioner.  It has also not been stated anywhere whether any attempt has been made to ask the persons in the neighbourhood to pay the balance amount to the Corporation.  In view of these facts, it is a clear case of deficiency of service towards the respondent because a State Corporation could not be allowed to follow the policy of discrimination towards the consumers situated in similar capacity.

11.    Further, the State Commission have brought out in their order that when the temporary connection was available in the area and permanent connections had been given to other residents of the area, there was no force in the argument taken by the petitioner Corporation that there were no cables or poles etc. in the area and hence, more money was charged from the respondent.  I do not find any reason to differ with this finding of the State Commission as well.

12.    Based on the discussion above, it is held that there is no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission and the same is upheld.  This revision petition is ordered to be dismissed on the grounds of limitation as well as on merits.  There shall be no order as to costs.