JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA (ORAL) The present Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been filed challenging the order dated 10.07.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No.15 of 2018 filed by the Respondent challenging the order dated 28.07.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (for short “the District Forum”) in CC 256 of 2014 of the Respondent. -2- 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent/Complainant wanted to install a tubewell in his fields for irrigation purpose. He applied for the connection under AP category on 17.10.2003 and according to the prevailing policy deposited a sum of ₹1185/- as security for meter etc. The Petitioner however failed to sanction any electricity connection in favour of the Respondent/Complainant. Their plea was that the State Government had launched a new policy for agriculture connection under AP category and under that scheme, applicants applying for tube well connection had to pay installation charges etc. The policy became effective from the date of its circulation i.e. dated 19.08.2011. It is submitted that according to these fresh guidelines of the State Government, the Complainant had to deposit ₹20,000/- and since the Complainant had failed to deposit the said amount, the electricity connection could not be issued to him. The stand taken by the Complainant was that he was never informed by the Petitioner that he was required to deposit ₹20,000/- and moreover, the new guidelines were applicable to those applicants who had applied after the guidelines came into force. -3- 3. Parties led their evidence before the District Forum and the District Forum dismissed the said Complaint vide order dated 28.07.2017. 4. This order was impugned before the State Commission. The State Commission after re-appreciating and re-assessing the evidence on record allowed the appeal and held as under: “I have considered the respective submission of the parties and have gone through the facts and circumstance of the case evidence adduced on record by both the parties. It is not disputed that the complainant applied for electricity connection to install tubewell under AP category vide circular No. D-80/2001 (AnnexureA-1) and deposited Rs.1185/- as security of meter etc. OPs/respondents have not produced any evidence before the District Forum about the demand notice issued to the complainant/appellant. In the absence of any such evidence it cannot be said that demand notice was issued to the complainant. It was the duty of the OPs/respondents to prove their case by showing demand notice issued to the complainant which is missing in this case.” 5. This order is impugned before me by the Petitioner on the ground that the Complainant was required to deposit the requisite expenses under the new guidelines issued by the State Government and the State Commission had ignored this fact and thus, the order is perverse. 6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant submits that the new policy was applicable only to those applicants who -4- applied after the policy came into force and that no demand notice etc. under the new policy had ever been issued to the Complainant by the Petitioner and therefore, there was a denial without any just cause and it amounted to deficiency in service. 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has failed to point out any document by which it asked the Complainant to make deposits as per the new scheme which came into force. In this context, the State Commission had rightly observed that the Petitioner / Respondent had not produced any evidence to this effect. The findings of the State Commission therefore are based on the evidence led by the parties. Moreover, the Respondent is a farmer and to irrigate his field, had urgently needed water which could be extracted only by installing a tube well and for which he made all the necessary deposits. The Petitioner kept his request pending without any justifiable reason and without informing him about the change of the policy. The farmers are generally not that much educated and have the awareness to keep track of all the changes in the state policy. It certainly was the duty of the Petitioner to inform the Complainant within reasonable time about the change in policy and accordingly raise the demands. It is apparent that the policy was changed by the Government keeping in mind the -5- increasing cost in the installation of the necessary tools/equipment for supplying the electricity after sanction of the connection. Admittedly the complainant had applied for the connection in 2003 and the new policy came into operation in 2011. The application, without any justifiable reasons, kept pending by Petitioners for eight years. Not only that, the connection was not issued even after directions of the State Commission and thus the request of the Respondent/Complainant for a tubewell connection needed for irrigation of the field was kept pending for nearly 15 years. The Petitioner by denying lawful rights to complainant has caused undue harassment to him as he was forced to somehow make alternate arrangements for the irrigation of his field for so many years. The present Petition has no merits and while dismissing the same, I impose costs of ₹30,000/- upon the Petitioner. The costs shall be paid by the Petitioner to the Complainant within four weeks by way of demand draft. Directions of the State Commission be complied with within four weeks. | 
