HVPN LTD Vs. ZILE SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The factual matrix of this case are that the complainant who is the respondent in this petition got a tube well connection bearing No.NG-305 from the petitioners/OPs in the year 1996 for irrigating his land. According to him, in spite of the fact that he has only one acre land and more than 50% of which is being used for agricultural purposes, he is being charged SP rate although he is liable to pay the lower AP rate of tariff as per Sales Circular No. 13/97. Having failed to get redressal of his grievance, the complainant filed a consumer complaint with the District Forum, Bhiwani, which was resisted by the OPs on the ground that the tube well connection was taken by the complainant under the Drip Irrigation Scheme in the year 1996 and the provisions of Sales Circular No.13/97 are not applicable. Based on the submissions made by the parties and the evidence adduced by thembefore it, the District Forum found deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and hence directed the OPs to charge the tariff of the electricity in respect of the tube well of the complainant at the AP rates w.e.f. 1.9.1998 and also directed the OPs to refund the difference between the SP and the AP rates already charged from the complainant by the OPs within two months from the date of the order along with interest @ 12% p.a. The OPs were also directed to pay cost of litigation of Rs.500 to the complainant. The appeal filed by OPs

(2.) We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the amicus curiae for the respondent. It is not disputed by the complainant that the tube well connection in question was granted to him by the petitioners in the year 1996 for Drip Irrigation Scheme on priority basis in terms of the provisions of the Circular No. 21/94 dated 9.8.1994. He was accordingly being charged in terms of the provisions of this circular at the SP rates. It is submitted by the petitioners that the complainant is not eligible to get benefit of lower rates under the Sales Circular No. 13/97 because he does not fulfil the conditions laid down in that circular. It is specifically argued by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the report of the Agriculture Development Officer, Soil Conservation, Tosham which has been heavily relied upon by the complainant, does not indicate that more than 50% of the land is being used by the complainant for agricultural purposes. On the other hand, it is mentioned therein that the complainant is having herbal garden and is raising horticulture as well as other crops and the water is being used for multi-production. In view of this, there is no basis to accept the claim of the complainant regarding more than 50% of the land being vised for raising agricultural crop and to this extent, both the Fora below based their conclusion in favour of the complainant on incorrect appreciation of the report of the Agricultural Officer. Besides this, undisputedly the tube well connection granted to the complainant was for Drip Irrigation Scheme on priority basis well before the issuance of the Sales Circular No. 13/97 and there is no material to support the request of the complainant for change of tariff from SP to AP rates.

(3.) We have considered the submissions made before us and have also perused the record placed before us. In spite of a specific query from us, amicus curiae has not referred to any document or other piece of evidence to support the contention of the complainant regarding more than 50% of the land being used for agricultural crops. Perusal of the report of the agricultural department clearly shows that the complainant has been growing multi-crops and is having a herbal garden. In the circumstances, the finding of the Fora below regarding the complainant having more than 50% of the area, under agricultural crop does not have any basis and hence cannot be sustained. This being the factual position emerging from the record and the submissions made before us, the complainant cannot get the benefit of lower AP rates under Sales Circular No. 13/97. Devoid of any merits, there is no option before us but to dismiss his complaint and allow the revision petition filed by the OPs. The revision petition, therefore, stands allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside with no order as to costs.