PER MR PREM NARAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER

        This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, Sh. Govind Rao against the order dated 18.10.2016 passed by the State Commission in First Appeal No.272 of 2016.

2.     The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum that the respondents have disconnected his electric connection to the tube well without any reasons, therefore, the petitioner has suffered loss as the crop could not be well irrigated.  The complaint was resisted by the respondents. The District Forum, however, finally disposed of the complaint as under :

        “1. That the complainant is authorized for re electricity connection only in own ownership land under electricity act and rules, rules by state govt. and regulations of C.G. electricity board after payment of necessary amount and dues.

2. The Complainant is authorized to get electricity connection only after lawful essential documents submission regarding his land ownership.

3. The Complainant is not entitle to get other compensation amount.

4. Both parties will bear own suit cost.  Accordingly be prepared cost table.”

3.     The petitioner/complainant preferred an appeal before the State Commission bearing First Appeal No.272/2016.  The State Commission however dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant and confirmed the order of the District Forum.  Hence the present revision petition.

4.     Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant at the admission stage. 

5.     The learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant argued that the tube well connection was disconnected by the respondents and both the Fora below have considered this fact that the petitioner has suffered loss as his land could not be irrigated for some time.   Though the District Forum has ordered for reconnection of electricity, however, no damages have been provided by the District Forum or the State Commission. The learned counsel also stated that there has been some delay in filing the present revision petition due to the reason that the petitioner belongs to a rural place not even connected by train. The delay is inadvertent and unintentional. It has been requested to condone the delay in filing the present revision petition.

6.     Learned counsel further states that the State Commission did not allow the evidence of patwari to be taken on record under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC.  The evidence of patwari would clearly reveal the extent of land owned by the petitioner and the extent of crop loss.  As this evidence was not taken, the Fora below have not correctly appreciated the loss suffered by the complainant.

7.     I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. First of all, it is seen that the Registry has reported a delay of 50 days in filing the present revision petition. In the facts given in the application of condonation of delay, I deem it appropriate to condone the delay.

8.     From the order of the District Forum, it is quite clear that District Forum has gone into the details of the connection, the land and other aspects in the matter and has finally ordered reconnection of the electric connection of the petitioner. The District Forum has also directed the complainant to pay the dues to the electricity department.  No fault can be found with the order passed by the District Forum because the District Forum has allowed the connection as well as has ordered the complainant to pay dues of electricity to the opposite party.  The District Forum has tried to resolve the issue reasonably well.  Even the State Commission has considered the appeal filed by the complainant in detail and, then, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the District Forum.  Both the Fora have given concurrent finding of facts about the disconnection and about the loss etc. and the scope under the revision petition is quite limited as facts cannot be reassessed under the revision petition as held by the Honble Supreme Court in Mrs Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2011 (3) Scale 654 as under :

“23. Also, it is to be noted that the re-visional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums.  The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts.  This is not the manner in which re-visional powers should be invoked.  In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed.  It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora.”

9.     Apart from the concurrent factual findings of the Fora below, the only legal point taken in the revision petition is that the State Commission did not allow the evidence of patwari to be taken under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC.  If the electricity has been disconnected for not paying the dues, even if the extent of land and damage to crops is certified by the patwari, the liability on the opposite party cannot be fixed as the opposite parties are fully authorized to disconnect the electric connection if there are dues against that connection.  Both the Fora have examined this issue and have reached to a common conclusion that there was no deficiency on the part of the opposite party in the present case. The reconnection has already been ordered by the District Forum.

10.   Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 18.10.2016 of the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission.  Accordingly, the revision petition No.651 of 2017 is dismissed at the admission stage.