Delay condoned.

               Challenge in this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (for short “the Vidyut Nigam”), Opposite Parties No.4 & 5 in the Complaint, is to the order dated 20.07.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Bikaner (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.92 of 2015.  By the impugned order, while affirming the finding dated 16.03.2015 recorded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Churu (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No.525 of 2011, to the effect that the Vidyut Nigam was deficient in service in not providing street light in Ward No.14, wherein the Complainants reside, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Appellants.  In the first instance, while accepting the Complaint filed by the Complainants, and relying on the letters written by the Complainants time and again to the Petitioners for providing street lighting in the said Ward, the District Forum had directed the Opposite Parties, which included the Petitioners and the Municipal Corporation, Rajgarh, to make adequate arrangement for street lighting in the said Ward and also to pay jointly and severally a sum of ₹5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

               Learned Counsel appearing for the Vidyut Nigam has strenuously urged that since the Complainants had moved the Municipal Corporation for providing street lighting in the said Ward, there was          no deficiency in service on the part of the Vidyut Nigam in not providing the same, more so, when the stipulated charges amounting to ₹59,551/- had not been deposited by the Municipal Corporation.

-3-

               Having perused the documents on record, and bearing in mind the nature of the direction issued by the Fora below, we do not find it to be a fit case for exercise of our limited Revisional Jurisdiction.  We are constrained to observe that being a Public Utility Service Provider, instead of sorting out the issue with regard to the deposit of the requisite charges for electrification of the street lights with the Municipal Corporation, which is equally concerned with providing adequate facilities to its residents, the Vidyut Nigam have chosen to file the present Revision Petition, resulting in further harassment to the Complainants and wastage of public money.

               Consequently, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly.