PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

          This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 4.7.2014 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 1589 of 2012 – Nathulal Yogi Vs. Asstt. Engineer, Jaipur V.V.N.L. by which, appeal was allowed.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent is consumer of electricity of OP/petitioner and his meter was burnt in December, 2008 and electric supply was stopped. Complainant requested OP to change meter and restore supply of electricity, but neither electricity was restored nor meter was changed. It was further submitted that OP issued bills and demanded Rs.13,174/- without any basis. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP resisted complaint, denied averments of the complaint and submitted that complainant’s domestic electric connection was disconnected due to non-payment of monthly bill of electricity consumption and connection can be restored only after depositing outstanding amount of bills and on payment of reconnection fees. It was further submitted that complainant took illegal electricity supply from his neighbourer brother. It was further submitted that after disconnection complainant is illegally getting supply of electricity and prayed for dismissal of complaint.  Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint and appeal filed by complainant was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and quashed demand of Rs.13,174/- and further directed to pay Rs.25,000/- for harassment, Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as cost of appeal against which this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.

3.      Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

4.      As far application for condonation of delay as per office report there is delay of 71 days in filing revision petition. Petitioner submitted in the application that copy of impugned order was received on 10.7.2014 which was sent to legal department and time was consumed in getting opinion and sanction; so, delay may be condoned. It is true that date-wise explanation for delay has not been  given, but as order of District Forum has been reversed by learned State Commission, we deem it appropriate to condone delay in the light of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in – (1) Civil Appeal Nos. 10120-10121 of 2014 – Jeevanti Devi Vs. Commercial Motors & Anr., (2) Civil Appeal No. (s) 10289 of 2014 – A.T.S. Govindarajane Vs. Chief Manager, State Bank of India, (3) Civil Appeal No. 5071 of 2014 – Taipen Traders Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/s. Bhawani Cold Storage & Ors. by which delay of 135 days, 149 days and 218 days, respectively, in filing revision petition was condoned and delay stands condoned subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as cost to respondent within 4 weeks.

5.      Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as bills were given on average basis and complainant failed to deposit amount raised in the bills, learned District Forum rightly dismissed complaint, but learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside.  On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by leaned State commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

6.      Perusal of record reveals that complainant’s meter was burnt in December, 2008 and as per complaint his electricity supply was stopped which was not restored. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that complainant was still getting supply without meter; so, he was charged on average basis.  OP in its written statement simply denied contents of complaint, but has nowhere mentioned that even after burning of meter, complainant was getting electricity supply; so, bills were issued on average basis rather it has been mentioned in additional pleas that complainant took illegal supply of electricity from his neighbourer brother which shows that complainant was not getting electricity supply from OP after meter was burnt. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner’s connection was disconnected in June, 2011 on account of non-payment of electricity dues, but we do not find any such averment in the written statement and any document in support of this submission. In such circumstances, it cannot be presumed that complainant was getting electricity supply from OP even after his meter was burnt. In such circumstances, OP has committed deficiency in issuing bills without consumption of electricity and learned State Commission has not committed any error in quashing demand of Rs.13,174/-.

7.      Learned State Commission has also allowed Rs.25,000/- for mental harassment, Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as cost of appeal. As per written statement, complainant was getting illegally electricity supply from his brother and in such circumstances; complainant is not entitled to get compensation for mental harassment as complainant himself was getting electricity against rules. In such circumstances, order allowing compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental harassment is liable to set aside.  Learned State Commission has also committed error in allowing Rs.11,000/- as cost of appeal particularly when his complaint was dismissed by learned District Forum and in such circumstances order allowing Rs.11,000/- as cost of appeal is liable to set aside. As far compensation of Rs.10,000/- is concerned, we upheld this order as complainant’s burnt meter was not replaced and his electricity supply was not restored.

8.      Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed and impugned order dated 4.7.2014 passed by the learned State Commission in Appeal No. 1589 of 2012 – Nathulal Yogi Vs. Asstt. Engineer, Jaipur V.V.N.L. is partly set aside and order allowing compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.11,000/- as cost of appeal is set aside and rest of the order is upheld. Parties to bear their costs.