PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Counsel for the petitioners present. Arguments heard. M/s Surya Trading Company had applied for electricity connection and deposited Rs. 19,600/- with the S.E./Officer concerned on 10.02.2009. Order of release of connection was issued on 10.02.2009. However, the officer, who was to execute the order, sat over the matter for 27 months and finally released the connection in May 2011. It was done because the complainant had sought the information under R.T.I. about the status of his application. The defense set up by the DHBVNL Vidyut Nagar –the OP is that the needful could not be done because there was shortage of material and therefore, connection could not be released. 2. Both the Fora below have come to the conclusion that this plea set up by the OP was not worthy of credence. District Forum imposed compensation in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- and the OP was asked to change the meter with new one and to overhaul the account of the complainant on the basis of six months consumption recorded by newly installed meter. The District Forum also imposed costs of litigation at Rs. 2200/-. This order was confirmed by the State Commission. 3. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner raises an objection that this connection was for commercial purposes. The complainant is not a consumer as this connection was not sought for self-employment. He has also cited a Supreme Court authority reported in the case of Sushil Kumar Mehta Vs. Gobind Ram Bohra (Dead) through his LRs [1990] 1 S.S.C. 193, wherein it was held that objection of jurisdiction can be raised even at the time of execution. The State Commission in another case held that mere application moved by the complainant does not prove that he is a consumer. The copy of that judgment has been placed on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited our attention towards para 6 of the judgment of the District Forum, which runs as follows:- “6. Therefore, in view of the above said discussion, it is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of respondents as the complainant has suffered substantial loss due to non releasing the connection in time. The net profit of the complainant for the assessment year 2009-10 was declared as Rs. 341255/- vide Annexure A-8, therefore the net profit of the complainant for the relevant year is taken as Rs. Five Lacs if connection would have been released in time. Therefore, keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above and harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant the present complainant is allowed with costs.” 5. All these arguments do not leave impression upon us. A bare look on the complaint clearly goes to show that the complainant is a proprietor Firm. Mr. Gopal is the only person who runs this company. In the complaint it is mentioned that “the complainant used to do the work of manufacturing of RCC Pillar Triguard from the Forest Department.” The complainant firm had taken contract for manufacturing of RCC Pillar Triguard from the Forest Department. In Para No. 6, he mentioned that “due to non instalment of meter, within one month of application of the complainant firm, the complainant firm could not complete the contract of manufacture of RCC pillar and triguard which the complainant firm had taken from the forest department.” All these facts clearly go to show that the complainant Gopal had a firm/company for his self-employment. It is also noticeable that no objection was raised in the written statement. The written statement is conspicuously silent about the same. Had the objection been taken at the right time, the complainant could have got an opportunity to rebut the same. There is no iota of evidence that somebody except Gopal had engaged a number of persons who helped him. Due to lack of evidence, it cannot be said that this electricity connection was taken for commercial purposes. 6. No explanation has been given why the electricity was not released for a period as many as 27 months. The OP has stated that there was shortage of material. However, they failed to show that they did not release the electricity for a period of 27 months to anybody else. The negligence and deficiency on the part of the person, who was sitting over it, stands proved. The higher authorities are prone to turn a Nelson’s eye to indiscipline in the branches rather than taking the bull by horns. See the Law laid down in “Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation & Anr. Vs. Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd., [2009] 1 SCR 1109”. The OPs who have spent a lot of money and preferred to come to this Commission for Revision Petition , they should have taken action against that person, whose act is neither genuine nor correct and recovered the money of Rs. 5,00,000/- from him. Inaction, passivity and negligence on his part have put a question mark over his integrity and honesty. 7. The Revision Petition is without merit and the same is therefore, dismissed. | 
