By this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (for short “the Vitran Nigam”), the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint, seeks to challenge the order, dated 18.03.2016, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bench No.3, Jaipur (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.1112 of 2014. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order, dated 10.11.2014, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur III, Jaipur (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No.1760 of 2012 (Old Complaint No.260 of 2008). By the said order, the District Forum, while holding that there was deficiency on the part of the Vitran Nigam in not granting 3KW Agricultural Electricity Connection, applied by him as far back as in the year 1989, had directed it to release the same soon after receiving the amount, which the Complainant was required to pay as per the Demand Notice stated to have been issued to him. Besides, the District Forum had also awarded -3- a lump sum amount of ₹21,000/- as compensation for mental agony and financial loss suffered by him because of deficient water supply to his fields. It may be noted at this juncture itself that in his Complaint, the Complainant had prayed for compensation of ₹6,00,000/- for loss of crops for a number of years. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has strenuously urged that the Vitran Nigam having dispatched the Demand Notice to the Complainant by registered post, which the Complainant claims to have not received, both the Forums below erred in holding that there was deficiency on the part of the Vitran Nigam, in not releasing the connection. It is also urged that since the release of an agricultural electricity connection is the sole discretion of the State Government, the Vitran Nigam cannot be directed to provide such connection. Having carefully perused the impugned orders and the documents placed on record, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the learned Counsel. Both the Forums below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the Vitran Nigam had failed to place on record any evidence to show that the Demand Notice had, in fact, been served on the Complainant. We are in complete agreement with the observations in the impugned order to the effect that being a farmer and having applied for an agricultural electricity connection in the year 1989, -4- there was no reason for the Complainant to ignore the Demand Notice, allegedly issued by the Vitran Nigam and not making the requisite deposit in terms thereof. In this behalf, it is also pertinent to note that as per the information on record, the Complainant had made representations to the office of the Chief Minister of the State. As regards the plea raised by the learned Counsel, for the first time, in these proceedings that the impugned direction cannot be executed, without an order for release of the connection by the State Government, it would suffice to note that in the first instance, the Demand Notice could not have been issued without prior sanction, if at all it was necessary, for release of the connection. Having already taken the decision to grant the electricity connection and issued the Demand Notice, to the Complainant, it is too late in the day for the Vitran Nigam to raise such a plea. In view of the afore-going reasons, as also the observations by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Gurgaon Gramin Bank vs. Khazani And Anr., (2012) 8 SCC 781” deprecating wastage of public money by the Government and its instrumentalities in litigating in trivial matters, -5- without there being any serious question of law, the Revision Petition is dismissed. |
