PRONOUNCED ON: 16th March, 2017 ORDER PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 25.08.2011, passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in Appeal No. 116/2009, Executive Engineer, Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitaran Khand & Ors. vs. Rajaram Singh, vide which, while allowing the appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Moradabad, dated 26.12.2008, in Consumer Complaint No. 146/2007, filed by the present petitioner, allowing the said complaint, was set aside and the parties were given liberty to institute their case before the competent court in accordance with law. 2. The facts of the case are that the complainant Rajaram Singh is an agriculturist, having an electric connection of 5hp in his name, bearing no. 104/3239 since 1988. The said connection was earlier in the name of his father since 1962. It is alleged in the consumer complaint that the opposite parties/OPs disconnected his electric supply in April, 2007 in collusion with his co-villager Dharamvir Singh and wanted to install his transformer at some other place. The land of 55 bighas was being irrigated from this tubewell. The complainant suffered a monthly loss of Rs. 2,50,000/- due to the action of the OPs. The complainant filed a representation before senior officers of the OPs, but there was no result. The consumer complaint no. 146/2007 was then filed, seeking directions to the OPs to reinstal the transformer at the earlier place and also to restore his electric connection, which was taken 45 years ago. 3. The complaint was resisted by the OPs by filing a written reply before the District Forum, in which they stated that the complainant defaulted in the payments of bills, due to which, the electric connection was disconnected on 06.02.2007. The complainant made partial payment of Rs. 2,000/- on 23.03.2007 and Rs. 7,019/- on 31.03.2007 and his electric connection was restored on 02.04.2007. The OPs also stated that the electric connection was given to another person Dharamvir Singh from the transformer of the complainant, only after due approval of the higher authorities. The transformer was shifted to another place from safety point of view, but the new place was only about 6 metres away from the earlier place. The OPs also replied that there was dispute between the complainant and his co-villager Dharamvir Singh regarding taking of electric connection, which was finally resolved with the intervention of the local respectables. The OPs pleaded that the complaint should be dismissed. 4. The District Forum, after taking into account, the averments of the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to restore the electric connection within one month from the date of the judgment and also to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as litigation cost. The District Forum concluded that the OPs had not restored the connection of the complainant despite receiving full amount of arrears due. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the OPs filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum in appeal and asked the parties to file their case before competent court in accordance with law. Being aggrieved against the order of the State Commission, the complainant is before this Commission by way of the present Revision Petition. 5. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner during arguments that in their reply filed before the District Forum, the OPs had stated that the electric connection was restored on 02.04.2007 and was still continuing. However, the said connection had not been restored. The learned counsel argued that the order passed by the District Forum was in accordance with law and should be restored. The order passed by the State Commission was based on mere technicalities and did not reflect a correct appreciation of the facts and evidences on record. In the grounds of Revision Petition, it has been stated that as per report of the Local Commissioner, the connection was not found working. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in J. J. Merchant (Dr.) vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi III (2002) CPJ 8 (SC), saying that the consumer fora were competent to handle and decide the case in question. 6. The notice of the Revision Petition was sent to the respondents. The respondent no. 1, Executive Engineer of the Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitaran Khand, Sambhal did not put in appearance, although notice was served upon him. The respondent no. 2, who is a Junior Engineer of the said organisation, is stated to have retired already. 7. I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me. 8. A perusal of the written reply filed by the OPs before the District Forum, makes it clear that the electricity connection was disconnected for non-payment of bills on 06.02.2007, but it was restored on 02.04.2007, after part payment was received from the complainant. The OPs have stated that the connection was still continuing. The complainant should, therefore, have no reason to feel aggrieved, as his electric supply had been restored. It has, however, been stated in the order passed by the District Forum and also in the report of the Local Commissioner appointed by the State Commission that the electric supply on the spot was not functional. In case it is so, it reflects a high degree of irresponsibility and callous attitude on the part of the officials of the opposite party. It is their duty, therefore, to ensure that the electricity supply should be running, as per the written commitment made by them in their own reply. 9. A perusal of the order passed by the State Commission indicates that the same is not based on any rational or correct analysis of the facts and material on record. A bare perusal of the order indicates that the State Commission has simply based their observations on mere technicalities, rather than dealing the issue in question in proper perspective. It was the duty of the State Commission to examine the facts based on the report of Commissioner and then asked the OPs to do the needful. The order passed by the State Commission is clearly perverse in the eyes of law and more so, keeping in view the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in J. J. Merchant (supra), the order passed by the State Commission is set aside. 10. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Revision Petition is allowed and the order passed by the District Forum is restored. The OPs are directed to ensure that their written commitment made in the reply before the District Forum is complied with in letter and spirit. In case, there is any lapse on the part of the OPs on that account, the petitioner/complainant is free to institute execution proceedings against the OPs under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for enforcement of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. |
