AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD Vs. INDRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS were opposite parties before the District Forum on a complaint filed by the respondent-complainant alleging deficiency in service in not supplying electricity to its new well. Both these revisions are against the order dated 23.9.2002 of the Rajasthan State Commission by which order State Commission decided the appeal filed by the petitioners and also a revision filed by them in one order though considering the appeal in the revision separately.

(2.) COMPLAINANT Indraj was having electric connection to his old well which dried and he dug a new well in another Khasra which he purchased on 15.2.2000. Regarding electric connection to new well, Tehsildar of the area had testified that the old well had dried up and the Assistant Engineer (Electricity) posted that time and the Deputy Chief Engineer (Electricity) recommended shifting of the electric connection to the new well. In spite of recommendation of higher authorities, both the petitioners set over the recommendations and did not provide electric connection. Although the electric connection had been applied earlier and so were also the recommendations for shifting of an electric connection, petitioners took up the stand that subsequently because of a circular of the Electricity Board that new connection can be provided only if the person had the owner of the land for over five years, electric connection could not be provided. That circular does not apply to the present case. For the reasons which are quite obvious, these lower authorities sat over the recommendations and did not provide electricity which resulted in filing a complaint before the District Forum. Complainant said that for the negligent act of the petitioners he could not raise his 'Kharif' crop and suffered damages. District Forum after examining the whole aspect of the matter directed that electric connection be given to the complainant within 15 days and in default he was directed complainant be paid compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. The petitioner had also allegedly concocted a false story of theft of electricity and levied a penalty of Rs. 15,000/- on the complainant. That was another ground for not supplying the electricity for which District Forum took a serious view in proceedings under Sections 25/27 of the Act. District Forum required the presence of the petitioners and against that order petitioners filed revision before the State Commission. State Commission took serious view of the non-compliance of the order of the District Forum by the petitioners and required their presence. It was against this order that a revision petition was filed in the State Commission.

(3.) IN view of the aforesaid, we hardly find the present case for us to interfere in exercise our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act. Both the appeal and revisions are dismissed.