1.      The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against impugned order dated 06.02.2018, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (‘State Commission’) in FA No.720 of 2017. The State Commission allowed the Appeal and directed the Petitioner to restore the electricity connection installed in favour of the Respondent/Complainant and also pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation and set aside the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur-IV (“District Forum”) in CC No. 96 of 2015 (Old CC No.618/2014) dated 19.05.2017 wherein the District Forum dismissed the complaint.

2.      As per the office report, there is 95 days delay in filing the present Revision Petition. For reasons stated in IA No. 15493 of 2018, the delay is condoned.

3.      For the convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

4.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that she is a resident with an electricity connection vide Account No. 15022002, has a property in Budhsingh Pura, Jaipur, consisting of two pucca rooms built on her 2/7 share of agricultural land. She applied for and was granted an electricity connection by the respondent. On 20.02.2013, she received a letter from the respondent, dated 05.02.2013, stating that one Smt. Nirmla Bhargva had claimed ownership of the land and had obtained a court order in her favor. The letter also mentioned that the complainant had previously submitted an affidavit declaring no dispute over the land when she applied for the electricity connection. She was asked to respond within 15 days, failing which her electricity connection would be disconnected. The complainant replied to the respondent on 05.03.2013, asserting her ownership and stating that she was unaware of any claim by Smt. Nirmla Bhargva at the time of applying for and receiving the electricity connection. She became aware of the court decree in February 2013 and filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC in the court of Additional District Judge No. 4, Jaipur City. She requested OPs to not disconnect her electricity connection while the matter is under litigation. Despite her letter, respondent's threatened to disconnect her electricity connection on 19.03.2013 and 04.04.2013. Aggrieved by these threats, she filed a suit with an application for interim injunction on 12.04.2013 in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No. 26, Jaipur City, Sanganer, Jaipur. On 16.04.2013, the court passed an interim injunction restraining the respondent from disconnecting the electricity connection without due process, provided she continued to pay the electricity charges and other amounts assessed by the respondent. Despite the interim order, the respondents entered the complainant’s residence on 21.08.2013 and removed the electricity meter. She filed a contempt petition with an application under Section 151 CPC. The respondent, in reply, claimed that the electricity connection had been disconnected on 12.04.2013, prior to the court's interim order. However, she contended that the disconnection was actually done on 21.08.2013 and their actions constitute arbitrariness, unfair trade practices, and deficiency in service. She filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum sought to restore of the electricity connection, Compensation of ₹50,000 for mental agony, pain, and hardship and ₹5,000 as the cost of the complaint.

5.      In reply before the District Forum, the petitioner/OP asserted that on 30.10.2012 the complainant submitted an affidavit along with her application agreeing that electricity connection could be disconnected without notice in case of any dispute over the plot. The connection was granted on 21.12.2012. The OP acted on an application submitted by Smt. Nirmla Bhargva, who had obtained a court decree in her favor regarding the land. Consequently, the Complainant was issued a letter on 05.02.2013, informing her of the potential disconnection due to the land dispute. The electricity was disconnected on 12.04.2013 based on order dated 09.04.2013. The OP denied any deficiency in service, asserting that the disconnection was done in accordance with rules and regulations. They have requested the dismissal of the complaint.

6.      The learned District Forum vide order dated 19.05.2017, dismissed the complaint as follows:

 “03.   Heard final arguments of parties and perused the file entirely.

04.      Ld. Counsel for complainant has argued that facts stated in the complaint are supported by the affidavit. He while referring the facts of the complaint and affidavit and documents filed has argued that on the basis of the same the complaint may be allowed and in support of his arguments has also filed written arguments.

05.      Ld. Counsel for respondent has argued that the facts stated in the reply are supported by the affidavit filed. He has argued for dismissal of complaint on the basis of facts of reply and affidavit and documents filed and has also filed written arguments in support of his arguments.

06. In the present case as per complainant, she has submitted that she had filed application on 07.02.2013 under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC in the court of Additional District Judge No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur against Smt. Nirmla Devi Bhargva in whose favour the decree regarding ownership of disputed land was passed by the court of Additional District Judge No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur and a copy thereof has also been filed by the complainant before the Forum and this position is clear that during the execution of decree the Civil Court based on evidence again determine the right of parties under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC, hence, it becomes clear that there is a question mark 3,0 on the decree secured by Smt. Nirmla Devi Bhargva from the court of Additional District Judge No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur and further, it has been the statement of complainant herself that on respondent threatening her of disconnection of electricity connection at Plot No.61 and 62, Krishi Nagar, she had filed a suit along with application for interim injunction on 12.04.2013 in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), No.26, Jaipur City, Sanganer, Jaipur, which are pending consideration from which it becomes clear that the complainant before filing this complaint before this Forum the cases/suits for ownership/ title of property in question in civil courts have been pending and Civil Suit regarding disconnection/restoration of electricity connection on the basis of said title/ownership has also been pending and in our humble opinion, whereas both these cases have already been pending in the civil court in which after recording evidence and examination/cross examination/re- examination, the cases are to be disposed of and whereas this Forum is required to dispose of the case only under summary procedure, whereas dispute related to property in question in this case is about disconnection/ restoration of electricity connection at the said property and it is based on title/ownership and ownership/title is liable to be decided by the civil court and here the civil suit is already pending, hence, we do not find it appropriate to entertain this matter here and complaint of complainant is found liable to be dismissed.

ORDER

  As such, consequent to complaint of complainant not found maintainable, the complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear their own respective costs.” (Extracted from true typed copy)

7.      Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Respondent/ Complainant filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The learned State Commission, vide order dated 06.02.2018 allowed the Appeal with the following observations:

  “Heard the counsel for the respondent and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

  The contention of the respondent is that civil suit was pending between the parties since 2004 and judgment of the civil suit Anx. R 5B is also submitted, bare perusal of the judgment goes to show that appellant is not a party in this suit and surprisingly no order has been passed in the civil suit in relation to the electricity connection. After passing of the decree the appellant objected in the execution proceedings under order 21 rule 97 CPC and the respondent without any authority has disconnected the electricity which is not only a deficiency but high handedness on the part of the respondent. Prior to the disconnection rule 46 (1) of Terms and Conditions for Supply of Electricity, 2004 has been complied with. No notice was issued to the appellant and furthermore rule 46(1) supra made it clear that the disconnection could only be made when a person neglects to pay charges for electricity supplied or any other sum due from him to the Nigam or he contravene any of the provisions of the Act or Terms and Conditions or committed breach of the agreement. Here in the present case no dispute was pending about the plot when the appellant has submitted an undertaking in October 2012 and it is very unfortunate that the respondents have disconnected the electricity on the request of a person who is not consumer of the respondent.

It may also be noted that contention of the respondent is that they get the disconnection on 12.4.2013 whereas the civil court has passed an injunction order in favour of the appellant on 16.4.2013 in presence of the counsel for the respondent and on that day the respondent has not submitted before the civil court that they have already disconnected the electricity and civil court has passed the stay in terms that disconnection should not be made without following the due procedure meaning thereby that on that day the connection was functional which shows the malafides of the respondents.

 It may also be noted that as per Rule 46 (6) after disconnection the billing shall be stopped forthwith but here the bills are issued till July 2013 which also shows that the contention of respondent that disconnection was done on 12.4.2013 is false.

Disconnection order Anx. R 7 is submitted by the respondent which is of 9.4.2013 and it reads that the disconnection is made on 12.4.2013 but it was never entered in the meter movement card or connected load register. Even it has not been mentioned that disconnection was made by which person, date and time has also not been entered and even the reason for disconnection has not been mentioned which was mandatory on the part of the respondent.

 Hence, in view of the above it can very well be concluded that the respondents are not only deficient but unfair trade practice is adopted and without any statutory authority they have made the disconnection of electricity on the desire of a stranger.

 In view of the above the appeal is allowed and the order of the Forum below dated 19.5.2017 is set aside. It is ordered that the respondents should reconnect the electricity on the impugned account number of the appellant. The respondents shall also pay to the appellant a sum of Rs.50,000/-as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 5000/-as cost of proceedings. The order be complied within one month.”

8.      In his arguments, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/OP argued that the dispute concerns the disconnection of an electricity connection issued in the name of Maina Devi. The OP received a letter from Smt. Nirmala Bhargava, along with a judgment and decree dated 28.04.2006 passed by the Addl District Judge No. 4, Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur declaring her the owner of the plot where the electricity connection was installed. Based on the judgment and the letter from Smt. Nirmala Bhargava, the OP disconnected the electricity connection from the pole on 12.04.2013. The electricity connection was originally issued in the name of Maina Devi. However, following the judgment dated 28.04.2006 in Civil Suit No. 71/2004, property ownership was transferred to Smt. Nirmala Devi.  After being informed of the change in ownership vide a letter from Smt. Nirmala, they were legally obligated to disconnect the supply, as failing to do so could result in unpaid dues. The District Forum correctly determined that it could not entertain the complaint since the ownership dispute was still pending in civil court. However, the State Commission incorrectly ruled that the electricity supply could not be disconnected if payments were being made. As per the petitioner once her ownership had been legally terminated by a court order, the petitioner could not continue supplying electricity without a legal means of collecting charges. The stay order granted to the respondent was after the electricity had already been disconnected, rendering the stay order ineffective. Further, the civil court did not issue any order for power restoration.

9.      In his arguments, the learned Counsel for the Respondent/ Complainant argued that the State Commission had directed the petitioner (Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd, JVVNL) to reconnect the supply to the respondent and to pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation and Rs. 5,000 as costs. The order was detailed and well-reasoned, concluding that JVVNL had acted without statutory authority in disconnecting the supply based on the desire of a third party, Smt. Nirmala Bhargava, who was not a consumer of JVVNL. The electricity connection to the respondent's house, located at Khasra No. 249/2 and Khasra No. 252 in Village Budhsingh Pura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur, was disconnected by JVVNL following a complaint by Smt. Nirmala, despite the respondent not being a party to the civil suit filed by Nirmala Bhargava. The disconnection occurred in violation of a stay order dated 16.04.2013 passed by a Civil Court in a suit for injunction filed by the respondent. This stay order was in fact passed in the presence of the counsel for JVVNL. The respondent, after learning of the decree dated 28.04.2006 in favor of Smt. Nirmala, filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC, 1908, before the Addl District Judge No. 4, Jaipur. The respondent sought protection from resistance and obstruction in possession by Nirmala, as she claimed ownership of the property through a sale deed. On 09.02.2016, the Addl District Judge ruled in favor of the respondent, holding that she was in legal possession of the property and was entitled to protection under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. The civil suit filed by Nirmala Bhargava was deemed not maintainable. JVVNL was aware of this order, yet it did not restore the electricity connection, nor did it file this order before the Commission. A copy of the order dated 09.02.2016 was submitted to the State Commission. Although Nirmala Bhargava challenged this order in High Court of Rajasthan, the respondent's legal possession and ownership remain valid. The power connection of the respondent has not been restored since 21.08.2013, despite the favorable order dated 09.02.2016. The State Commission’s order directing JVVNL to restore the electricity within a month was not complied with; instead, JVVNL challenged the order before this Commission and obtained a stay of its operation. The respondent, a poor woman, has been living without electricity for over nine years despite making all due payments for electricity bills. The disconnection by JVVNL was made recklessly, without proper reason, and based on the false claims of a third party, which were eventually dismissed by the Additional District Judge. The actions of JVVNL are not only illegal but also violate the respondent's fundamental rights to live peacefully and have access to electricity in her home. JVVNL, a Govt department responsible for distributing electricity, acted in an unfair and arbitrary manner by disconnecting the respondent’s electricity without following due process.

10.    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.

11. The central issue to be determined in this case is whether the Petitioner (JVVNL) acted lawfully in disconnecting the electricity line of the Complainant and whether this action constitutes a deficiency in service.

12.    The petitioner/OP claimed that the disconnection was carried out based on a judgment dated 28.04.2006, which declared Smt. Nirmala Bhargava as the rightful owner of the property where the electricity connection was installed. They asserted being legally obligated to disconnect the service upon receiving a request from the new owner, Smt. Nirmala Bhargava, to avoid potential non-payment issues.

13.    On the other hand, the respondent/Complainant contended that the disconnection was unlawful because it was executed in violation of a stay order dated 16.04.2013 issued by a Civil Court in Jaipur. Additionally, the respondent was not a party to the civil suit in which Smt. Nirmala Bhargava was declared the owner, and she had filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC to protect her possession of the property, which was subsequently upheld by the court on 09.02.2016.

14.    The respondent alleged that JVVNL’s actions clearly constituted a deficiency in service, as the disconnection was affected without following due process and it was based on a third party's claim without proper verification. Undisputedly, the respondent had been regularly paying her electricity bills and was not in arrears at the time of disconnection. The disconnection has caused significant hardship, as the respondent has been without electricity for over nine years, despite court orders and continuous legal battles. The State Commission also found that JVVNL's actions were not only deficient but also amounted to unfair trade practices.

15.    In the present case, no dispute was pending about the premises in question when the Respondent/Complainant had submitted an undertaking in October 2012, and the electricity connection was disconnected on the request of a person who is not even a consumer of the Petitioner/OP.

16.    It deserved to be noted that the contention of the Petitioner/OP is that they disconnected the electricity on 12.04.2013, whereas the Civil Court had passed an injunction order in favor of the Respondent/ Complainant on 16.04.2013 in the presence of the counsel for the Petitioner/OP. On that day, the Petitioner/OP had not informed the Civil Court that they had already disconnected the electricity. The Civil Court passed the stay order stating that disconnection should not be made without following due procedure, meaning that the connection was likely functional at that time, indicating malafide on the part of the Petitioner/OP.  It is also admitted that a bill for July 2013 was issued in the name of the Complainant/Respondent, which further supports the contention that the disconnection did not occur on 12.04.2013. Additionally, there is no evidence to establish when the disconnection was made or the reason for such disconnection, which was mandatory for the petitioner/OP to document.  Thus, in my considered view, the State Commission rightly concluded that the Petitioner/OP not only acted deficiently but also adopted unfair trade practices by disconnecting the electricity without any statutory authority, based on the request of a stranger, who herself was not their consumer. Even if she is finally declared as a person with interest over the property in question, for her to seek electricity connection or renewal, she is bound to clear all the existing dues. Thus, as no stage the pecuniary interests of the OPs were never under challenge. Therefore, the actions of OP in this regard are questionable.

17.    In view of the foregoing discussions, I find no illegality or impropriety in the detailed and well reasoned order of the learned State Commission dated 06.02.2018. Consequently, Revision Petition No. 2335 of 2018 is dismissed.

18.    There shall be no order as to costs.

19.    All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.