1.      This Revision Petition No.115 of 2020 challenges the impugned order of Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (‘the State Commission’) dated 21.10.2019. Vide this order, the State Commission had dismissed Appeal No.973 of 2019 and affirmed the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bikaner (‘the District Forum’) dated 19.07.2019.

2.      Briefly, the case of the Petitioner/Complainant is that she had purchased a field in village Momasar, Tehsil Sridungargarh, Bikaner from Rupa Beva Hulasamal and Satyanarayana. In this field, an agricultural power connection of general category No. 07030252 existed. She applied for transfer of the said electrical connection in her name. However, without citing any reason, the Respondent cut off the electric connection and the power pole was removed. The Complainant had earlier presented a Consumer Complaint No. 167/2007. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Bikaner, on appeal vide order dated 21.11.2012 directed the Respondents to transfer the power connection within one month and pay 10,000/- as compensation. She alleged that the Respondents failed to comply with the order for a long time. Finally, the power connection was issued in her name on 25.04.2014.

3.      After this, the power supply was kept on for some time and it was stopped, and no bill was sent during this time. As per the Complainant, she repeatedly approached the Respondents to give the bill. They did not give the bill stating that they are changing their system and computerizing all the work and hence the bill is not being generated. As soon as the bill is made, it will be sent. Upon this she waited. In May 2017, a bill for payment of Rs.412,412/- was sent to the Complainant. She was shocked, contacted Respondents and asserted that that her electric connection has been closed for the last two years and, despite not providing electricity, how the bill for over four lakh rupees was sent. Thereafter, the Respondents corrected the bill and replaced it with a duplicate bill of Rs.4,06,776/- instead of Rs. 4,12,412 and called upon the Complainant to deposit this amount. When she did not deposit the said amount stated in the Bill, the Respondents threatened to disconnect the connection, which signifies unfair trade, behavior and lack of service. She, therefore, sought the bill amount to be corrected, the electricity connection to be restored and the amount of crop damaged of Rs.10,00,000/- to be paid, the notice sent to the Complainant should be canceled and Rs.25,000/- spent by her to go again and again at Respondent's office should be given and the cost of the complaint including Rs.2,00,000/- for mental harassment.

4.      The Respondent filed a reply and stated that as per the order of the State Commission, the agricultural power connection of the Complainant was turned on, but the Complainant is making a wrong statement in this regard that the Respondents did not send the bill to her saying that the bill was not generated. The actual situation is such that the connection of the Petitioner was in the name of Shri Satyanarayana s/o Hulasaram in the past and Satyanarayana had not paid the electricity bills in time. His electrical connection was disconnected as per the rules. Since petitioner had told that she purchased agricultural land of Shri Satyanarayana along with the agricultural power connection, till the Complainant deposited arrears due on the former power connection and obtain the NOC, she could not get an electrical connection on her name. Despite this, she applied for change of name, on which the department also changed the name by reconnecting as per the order of the State Commission. But the Complainant did not deposit the arrears as per the rules, which continued to be added to her subsequent bills, which the Respondents corporation has the right to recover. Further, the Petitioner submitted a consent letter to Respondents on 08.11 2013 agreeing to deposit the amount due in the name of Satyanarayana and follow the rules of the department. Despite this, amount due was not deposited. Shri Satyanarayana's outstanding electricity bill was Rs.2,43,370/- and the name was also changed in April 2014 at the time of Petitioner's reconnection, but the petitioner did not pay even after the reconnection, the due amount kept increasing. It was the Petitioner did not deposit any amount outstanding after the reconnection and the Respondent has right to disconnect the electric connection as per rules.

5.      The District Forum, vide order dated 19.07.2019, dismissed the complaint of the petitioner.

6.      Being aggrieved by the order of the learned District Forum, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission, vide order dated 21.10.2019 affirmed the order of the District Forum and dismissed the Appeal. Hence, the present Revision Petition.

7.      In his arguments, the learned counsel for Petitioner reiterated the grounds stated in the Revision Petition and asserted that the Petitioner had in fact already paid Rs.2,10,000/- on 18.10.2017 towards outstanding dues of the electricity connection. He sought the order of the lower fora be set aside and the present Revision Petition be allowed. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the amount of Rs.2,10,000/- paid by the petitioner is adjusted towards the outstanding dues of the electricity connection. He produced the outstanding dues statement as on 11.10.2023 wherein the due is shown is Rs.3,69,761.47. He further clarified that, under an amnesty scheme, late payment surcharge amounting to Rs.1,45,959.74 has been exempted and the total amount now due is Rs.3,69,761.47. He has also stated that, the OPs will reassess the total due with due regard to the payment of Rs.2,10,000 already made and afford the possible reduction in the dues and notify the Petitioner within a period of four weeks. After the Complainant makes the balance payment due to the Respondents, the power connection will be restored in two weeks.

8.      I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties.

9.      The learned State Commission, after hearing both parties, determined that the learned District Forum's order required no intervention. This was primarily because the amount so paid by the Petitioner has been adjusted in the outstanding bill of the electricity connection of the petitioner in question. However, there is still outstanding towards the electricity connection of the petitioner and the petitioner has to pay the same. This order is now being challenged at the revision stage.

10.    It is a well settled position in law that revision under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case, there are concurrent findings of the facts and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order passed by the learned State Commission warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction under the Act. I place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269.

11.    In addition, Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr.  Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022 observed as follows:-

“9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

12.    Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31 has held that:- 

As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record.

13.    The learned Counsel for the Respondent acknowledged that Rs.2,10,000/- has been paid by the Petitioner and this amount is adjusted against the outstanding dues. He further stated that, as per an amnesty scheme, the late payment surcharge in respect of the Petitioner to the extent of Rs.1,45,959.74 was exempted and the amount now due is Rs.3,69,761.47. He also fairly undertook that, the OPs will reassess the balance with due regard to the payment of Rs.2,10,000 already made and afford possible reduction in the dues and notify the Petitioner within a period of four weeks and, after the Complainant makes the balance payment due, the power connection will be restored in two weeks.

14.    Based on the discussion above, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is, therefore, Dismissed. Consequently, the impugned Order passed by the learned State Commission is upheld.

15.    Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

16.    All pending Applications, if any, are disposed of accordingly