1. This batch of 17 Revision Petitions, by Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (UHBVNL), for short “the Bijli Vitran Nigam”, is directed against the orders, all dated 26.04.2017, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Panchkula (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeals No.93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114 and 115 of 2017. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the orders, dated 25.11.2016, 11.11.2016, 08.12.2016, 23.11.2016 and 14.12.2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Cases No. 223, 226, 234, 225, 235, 239, 187, 259, 224, 186, 185, 184, 183, 205, 204, 211 and 188 of 2016, and, has, thus, dismissed the aforesaid Appeals, filed by the Bijli Vitran Nigam. 2. In the first instance, allowing the Complaints filed by the Respondents/Complainants, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Bijli Vitran Nigam in not regularizing the tube-well connections and installing the meters, despite the Complainants having paid substantial amounts under the Self Execution Scheme, launched by the Bijli Vitran Nigam for regularization of illegal connections, the District Forum had directed the Bijli Vitran Nigam not to disconnect the electricity supply of the Complainants, install the electricity meters and also regularize the connections, without demanding any amounts from the Complainants. 3. At the outset, Learned Counsel appearing for the Bijli Vitran Nigam submits that as per his instructions, the Bijli Vitran Nigam is willing to comply with the directions issued by the Fora below, provided it is permitted to recover electricity charges from the Complainants from the date of inspection of their respective connections. 4. Having perused the documents on record, including the statement of one Dilbagh Singh Dhillo, Junior Engineer, Sub-Office, UHBVNL, in the criminal proceedings initiated against Jasbir Singh Punia, Junior Engineer, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the fact that admittedly the poles for the purpose of regularization of the connections of the Complainants had been installed, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the concurrent finding recorded by both the Fora below to the effect that the said Punia in collusion with one Rajesh, claiming to be an approved contractor, had received substantial amounts from the Complainants. Evidently, nothing from the godowns of the Bijli Vitran Nigam, particularly the major items, like poles etc., could be removed without receipt of the requisite amounts for the purposes of electrification and issue of connection under the afore-stated Scheme, which, admittedly, were installed, except for issue of meters. Under the circumstances, the finding of fact returned by both the Fora to the effect that the Complainants had deposited the requisite amount through one Rajesh, which is not under challenge as being perverse, cannot be faulted with. Accordingly, we affirm the same. 5. Having reached the said conclusion, we may examine the contention of the Learned Counsel that having admittedly consumed electricity without meter, the Complainants are liable to pay to the Bijli Vitran Nigam the charges for consumption of electricity. 6. Though, in principle, we would agree with the Learned Counsel that nobody is authorized to use electricity free of charge, but, having regard to the fact that the Complainants had made the requisite deposits under the afore-stated Scheme, launched to regularize the illegal connections, and the meters for recording consumption had not been installed, the Bijli Vitran Nigam cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong. Nevertheless, in order to balance equities between the parties, we permit the Bijli Vitran Nigam to recover from the Complainants charges for the electricity consumed by them in the last six months commencing from the date of installation of the meters at their premises on the basis of actual average consumption for the succeeding three months. 7. Though we are conscious of the fact that the orders passed by the Fora below are being modified slightly in the absence of the Complainants, but in order to avoid unnecessary financial burden on the Bijli Vitran Nigam on payment to the Complainants the travel and allied expenses, in the event of issuance of notice to the Complainants, as also inconvenience to them, we have decided not to issue notice to them. 8. Accordingly, all the Revision Petitions are disposed of with the afore-noted modification in the orders impugned in these Petitions. 9. Order dasti. |