This revision petition has been filed by Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Petitioner’) against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred as the ‘State Commission’) which has upheld the order of the District Forum in favour of one, Nand Kishore (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Respondent’) who was the original complainant before the District Forum.

        The facts of the case are that the Respondent who owns agricultural land in District Boondi, Rajasthan had applied for a 6 HP electricity connection to irrigate his land under the Agriculture Connection Scheme 2004 on 27.03.2004.  He deposited the required amount of Rs.5,200/- along with his application and also paid Rs.49,000/- to get the electricity connection.  However, instead of getting the electricity connection within the expected period of one month, Petitioner sent two more demand notices for payment of Rs.33,850/- and Rs.18,300/-.  As the crops of the Respondent were getting damaged due to scarcity of water, he deposited the required amounts and the connection was finally supplied to him after he had deposited the third amount on 04.04.2005.  Feeling aggrieved by the above actions of the Petitioner which caused him harassment and also led to loss of crops of about Rs.30,000/- because of delay in irrigating his fields, Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking that he be refunded Rs.52,150/- paid by him with interest @ 12%, Rs.30,000/- towards economic loss, Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation and other reliefs as applicable. 

The Petitioner, on the other hand, justified the additional demand notices on the ground that as a result of a policy change in the Agriculture Connection Scheme, 2004, the actual cost of installation had to be charged from the person seeking electricity connection in lieu of the earlier Scheme when there was a fixed rate per H.P. to be paid by the applicants.  This change involved measuring the actual distance to be covered in the electricity connection and in this case it was about 300 meters more than the earlier distance as informed by the Respondent.  As a result there was also substantial increase in the cost of installation.  Hence the two demand notices for additional payment. The District Forum after hearing both parties allowed the complaint on the grounds that issuance of demand notices for higher amount to the farmer is against the settled law as decided by the National Commission in Kalichammi V/s Executive Engineer.  It directed the Petitioner to refund or adjust in future bills the amount of Rs.52,150/- which was paid by the Respondent in addition to the earlier amount of Rs.49,000/- and also ordered the Petitioner to pay Rs.1,000/- for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards the cost of litigation.

Aggrieved by this order, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which upheld the order of the District Forum.  The operative part of the order of the State Commission reads as follows:

“In our considered opinion the appellant did not supply the electric connection even after the deposit of the amount of Rs.49,000/- of the first demand letter on 20.08.2004.  Instead the second demand letter of Rs.33,850/- dated 02.12.2004 and third demand letter of Rs.18l,300/- dated 29.03.2005 was issued which is wrong and by dismissing the same the Hon’ble District Forum has not made any error.  The findings of the Hon’ble Forum is sustainable and the appeal of the appellant is liable to be dismissed.”

        Hence the present revision petition.

        Learned counsel for Petitioner made oral submissions.  Respondent was not present today nor on the last two dates.  On the last date of hearing i.e. on 07.10.2010, we had directed that in case Respondent does not appear after having received the litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- on the next date, he shall be proceeded ex parte and the case will be decided in his absence.  Counsel for Petitioner confirmed that Rs.5,000/- had been paid to the Respondent.  However, Respondent was not present personally or through his counsel.

        In his oral submissions, counsel for Petitioner, Shri K.L. Nandwani, reiterated the fact that the additional demands were raised against the Respondent because of specific changes in the provisions of the Agricultural Connection Scheme, 2004 wherein the earlier provision of fixed charges of Rs.8,000/- per 8 HP to 10 HP were replaced by a revised policy which required the Petitioner to charge the actual cost of installation from the person demanding connection.  This implied re-measuring the distance and calculating the actual costs of installation which resulted in the additional demand notices.  Therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners and the learned fora erred in dismissing their case.

        We have heard counsel for the Petitioner and have gone through the evidence on record.

It is on record that the additional demand was raised by Petitioner because of the change in Agriculture Connection Scheme, 2004 which required the Respondent to pay the actual cost of installation for the connection.  It was under these circumstances that the two notices for additional payments were issued and which the Respondent had paid after which he was given the electricity connection.  Therefore, the delay in giving the electricity connection and the two subsequent demand notices for additional payments were not as a result of any administrative lapse or deficiency in service but was necessitated because of a policy change in the Scheme.  Unfortunately, the State Commission in its order has not taken into consideration these facts and has rejected the appeal summarily by concluding that it was wrong for the Petitioner to have issued additional demand letters.  We, therefore, set aside the order of the State Commission.  The Revision Petition is allowed.