1.       The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioners against order dated 02.01.2019 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.1024 of 2018.

2.       The case of the Complainant/Respondent is that on 11.09.2017 he applied for a domestic electricity connection for his residential house and submitted all relevant documents and fee of Rs.200/-. The Opposite Parties sent demand notice dated 27.09.2017 for Rs.18,471/- to the Complainant on the ground that the house of the Complainant was situated in non-abadi area. On receiving the demand notice, the Complainant visited the office of Opposite Parties and informed them that his residential accommodation was situated in abadi area. The Complainant did not receive any satisfactory reply from the Opposite Parties. The Complainant also sent a letter dated 19.11.2017 to the Opposite Parties requesting them to issue correct demand notice as per Rules and Regulations and provide the electricity connection, but the Opposite Parties did not give any reply to the Complainant. On 20.11.2017, the Complainant again visited the office of the Opposite Party and requested that demand notice dated 27.09.2017 be cancelled. Opposite Party informed the Complainant that 27.11.2017 was the last date for depositing the amount and if the Complainant failed to deposit the same, the application for electric connection would be rejected and no connection be provided to him. On 18.12.2017, the Complainant filed an application before the Lok Adalat to render the demand notice as illegal. The Lok Adalat held that the case was outside its jurisdiction. The Complainant, therefore, withdrew the case on 21.02.2018.

3.       Aggrieved by non-cancellation of demand notice dated 27.09.2017, the Respondent/Complainant filed Consumer Complaint before the District Forum with following prayer: -

“1.   That the non-applicants may be directed that the non-applicants cancel the demand notice dated 27.09.2017 bearing No.DND/NC/184138 of Rs.18,471/- issued to the complainant/applicant herein by the non-applicants arbitrarily committing gross negligence and deficiency in service and treating the residential house of complainant as situated in Abadi and accept the deposit of amount of demand notice as per rules for electricity connection and release the electricity connection immediately. Further, non-applicants may be restrained from cancelling the electricity file of the complainant herein on the basis of abovesaid wrong demand notice.

2. That the complainant-Applicant herein may be allowed Rs.20,000/- from the non-applicants as compensation for mental agony and physical pain and financial loss caused by the non-applicants due to deficiency in their services and Rs.11,000/- as cost of complaint may be allowed.

3. That any other proper order as per Hon’ble Court may deem fit be passed in favour of the complainant-applicant.”

4.       The Complaint was resisted by the Opposite parties by filing a reply. It was denied that the Complainant lived in abadi area. The demand notice was sent to the Complainants as per the Rules. The Complainant had not submitted the application under Pradhan Mantri Sehej Bijili Har Ghar Yojna (Saubhagya). The electricity connection, therefore, could not be issued to the Complainant under the said scheme.

5.       The District Forum after hearing the Parties and perusing the record allowed the Complaint. The order of the District Forum reads as follows: -

“As such, complaint of the complainant is allowed and it is ordered that the non-applicants cover the application of complainant under Pradhan Mantri Sehaj Bijli Har Ghar Yojna and take action as per the rules within 15 days for issue of said disputed electricity connection. Parties to bear their own cost in complaint.”

6.       Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Opposite Parties filed First Appeal No.1024 of 2018 before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide order dated 02.01.2019 dismissed the Appeal.

7.       Aggrieved by the impugned order of the State Commission, the Petitioners/Opposite Parties preferred this Revision Petition with following prayer-

“(i)    Set aside the order dated 02.01.2019 and 14.11.2018 passed by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur in Appeal no/ 1028/2018 and District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission respectively;

(ii)     Hold that the Respondent is not entitled to avail the benefits provided under the Pradhan Mantri Sehej Bijili Har Ghar Yojna (Saubhagya scheme);

(iii)    Pass any such orders or further orders as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances.”

8.       Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners and carefully perused the record. None appeared on behalf of the Respondent. The Respondent was, therefore, proceeded ex-parte, vide order dated 10.09.2021. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Respondent did not fall under the Saubhagya Scheme nor has he applied under the Scheme till today. Moreover, no individual electricity connection is provided under the Saubhagya Scheme. Under the said Scheme, the list of applicants is sent to the Superintending Engineer (T.W.) and on the basis of approval by the Chairman, JVVNL, the electricity connection is released to the applicants. It was also submitted that the electricity connection under the Saubhagya Scheme is issued to the financially weaker persons and the Respondent does not fall under the economically weaker sections nor had he applied under the said Scheme.

9.       Facts of the case are that on 11.09.2017, the Complainant applied for an electricity connection for his residential house. On 27.09.2017, the Opposite Parties issued demand notice for Rs.18,471/- to the Complainant on the ground that the house of the Complainant was situated in non-abadi area. In the demand notice it was mentioned that if the Complainant failed to deposit the amount by 27.11.2017, the application for electricity connection would be cancelled. Aggrieved by the said demand notice dated 27.09.2017, Complainant filed Consumer Complaint before the District Forum.

10.     The main dispute in this case is whether the house of the Complainant is situated in non-abadi area and whether the Complainant was under the category of financially weaker sections. After issuance of demand notice dated 27.09.2017, the Complainant had given an application on 18.11.2017 to the Assistant Engineer of the Opposite Parties wherein he stated that the house of the Complainant was situated in densely populated area/abadi for the last 30 years. Opposite Parties had not taken any decision on the application. Opposite Parties had not filed any evidence to show that the house of the Complainant was not situated in abadi. Petitioners had not produced copy of the Saubhagya Scheme either before the District Forum or the State Commission. State Commission in the impugned order dated 02.01.2019 mentioned that the Appellants had not produced the Rules and the terms & conditions of the Scheme in question.  Therefore, we do not find any material irregularity in the order passed by the State Commission. Also, Jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21 (b) is very limited. This Commission is not required to re-appreciate and reassess the evidences and reach to its own conclusion. The Court can intervene only when the Petitioner succeeds in showing that the Fora below have wrongly exercised its jurisdiction or there is a miscarriage of justice. It was so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 has held as under: -

“13.        Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums.  The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal  principle  that  was  ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts.  This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked.  In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed.  It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora.”

11.     Same principle has been reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. and Ors. (2016 8 SCC 286 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

“23. The  National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in their or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons.”

12.     In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of both Fora below. Petitioners have failed to point any illegality or material irregularity in the order passed by the State Commission, warranting interference in exercise of Revision Jurisdiction of this Commission. Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.