1. This Revision Petition, by Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (for short “the Vitran Nigam”) is directed against the order, dated 20.04.2015, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Jaipur (for short “the State Commission”). By the impugned order, the State Commission, while overturning the order, dated 17.05.2010, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Jhunjhunu (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No. 146 of 2010, has accepted the Complaint, which was dismissed by the District Forum, with a direction to the Vitran Nigam to refund to the Complainant a sum of ₹5,120.64 recovered from him as over-dues along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the Complaint till realization. The State Commission has also awarded compensation of ₹30,000/- in favour of the Complainant along with a sum of ₹11,000/- as costs. 2. The backdrop in which the Complaint came to be filed was the allegation of the Complainant that the agriculture electricity connection, which was in the name of his father and was disconnected sometime in the year 2008, was not energized despite his depositing on 23.01.2009 over-dues amounting to Rs.2,794/- along with reconnection fee of ₹600/-. 3. On the contrary, the stand of the Vitran Nigam, in the written version filed on its behalf, was that on receipt of the said amount, the electricity connection was restored on 05.02.2009 but was again disconnected on 01.09.2009 on account of non-payment of the outstanding amount of ₹5,120.64 by the Complainant. 4. Learned Counsel for both the parties are ad-idem that although some documents, including disconnection notice dated 23.01.2009 and a notice dated 14.07.2009, calling upon the Complainant to clear the arrears amounting to ₹3,006/-, had come on the record but no evidence was led by any party in support of their respective stands. It is evident that both the Fora below proceeded to decide the Complaint only on the basis of the averments made in the Complaint and reply thereto filed by the Vitran Nigam, further short circuiting even the summary procedure of trial to be adopted while adjudicating upon the Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 5. During the course of hearing of the Revision Petition, on our direction, original Register, containing certain entries, relating to disconnection and reconnection, stated to have been made by the Linesman, has been produced before us. However, having regard to the Limited Revisional Jurisdiction, we feel that it would not be proper to take on record fresh evidence in these proceedings. We are of the opinion that both the Fora below committed material irregularity in deciding the case without calling upon the parties to file supporting evidence and, therefore, the orders passed by both the Fora below cannot be sustained. 6. Consequently, the Revision Petition is allowed and the Complaint is restored to the board of the District Forum for fresh adjudication on merits after due opportunity to the parties to file supporting evidence by way of affidavits, if they so desire.
7. The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs. 8. The parties/their Counsel are directed to appear before the District Forum on 08.07.2016 for further proceedings. |
