JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM Vs. RAM KARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioner') being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in Appeal No. 583/2006 in favour of Ram Karan, Respondent herein, who was the original complainant before the District Forum. In his complaint before the District Forum, Respondent has contended that his late father had taken an electricity connection for agricultural purposes from the Petitioner/Nigam and his electricity connection was disconnected in 1998 because as per the Respondent his father had failed to deposit the pending dues on account of the electricity bills. Since it was necessary for Respondent and his joint family to get a new electricity connection to earn their livelihood, an application for reconnection was made and as advised by the Petitioner/Nigam, the outstanding amount was deposited in two instalments by Respondent's father i.e. Rs. 5,000 on 31.3.1998 and Rs. 8,071 on 9.6.1998. Despite this, the electricity connection at the agricultural well was not restored and instead a "V.C.R." was issued levying charges of Rs. 5,000 against the Respondents which was also paid and again as advised by the Petitioner/Nigam, a fresh application for reconnection of electricity was made by depositing Rs. 75. Petitioner/Nigam thereafter issued a demand note after calling for the physical report of the power line. However, despite several applications and visits by the Respondent as well as his father to Petitioner's Office from 20.6.2001 to 5.5.2005 and the electricity connection has not been restored till date. Consequently, Respondent had to suffer a great loss in his agricultural work. Therefore, in order to redress his grievance, Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service since Petitioner failed to reconnect the electricity and requested that Petitioners be directed to reconnect the electricity immediately and also pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation for mental agony and financial loss, Rs. 10,000 on account of expenses on the various visits made to the Petitioner's office and Rs. 2,000 as litigation costs.

(2.) The above contentions were denied by the Petitioners in their response to the Respondent's complaint and it was stated that the electricity reconnection could not be given because the Respondent had failed to deposit the requisite money against the demand notice which had been issued for reconnection of his electricity.

(3.) The District Forum after hearing both parties and considering the evidence on record directed that upon deposit of the amount by the Respondent as per the demand note issued to him by Petitioner, the electricity connection be got reconnected within one month from the date of the order. Petitioner accordingly reissued the demand notice of 31.3.2002 for a sum of Rs. 81,850 to the Respondent. However, instead of settling this demand Respondent again filed a complaint before the District Forum on the grounds that the said demand notice for reconnection is illegal and should be quashed since it should have been issued in accordance with Agricultural Connection Guidelines, 2004 (as amended upto 18.9.2004) under Regulation No. 24 thereof and not the Special Category Connection (New) Regulations, 2002. Respondent also sought a sum of Rs. 10,000 for further mental agony caused besides litigation cost of Rs. 2,000.