CHIDIYA DEVI Vs. JODHPUR VIDYUT VITARAN NIGAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition No.115 of 2020 challenges the impugned order of Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur ('the State Commission') dtd. 21/10/2019. Vide this order, the State Commission had dismissed Appeal No.973 of 2019 and affirmed the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bikaner ('the District Forum') dtd. 19/7/2019.

(2.) Briefly, the case of the Petitioner/Complainant is that she had purchased a field in village Momasar, Tehsil Sridungargarh, Bikaner from Rupa Beva Hulasamal and Satyanarayana. In this field, an agricultural power connection of general category No. 07030252 existed. She applied for transfer of the said electrical connection in her name. However, without citing any reason, the Respondent cut off the electric connection and the power pole was removed. The Complainant had earlier presented a Consumer Complaint No. 167/2007. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Bikaner, on appeal vide order dtd. 21/11/2012 directed the Respondents to transfer the power connection within one month and pay 10,000/- as compensation. She alleged that the Respondents failed to comply with the order for a long time. Finally, the power connection was issued in her name on 25/4/2014.

(3.) After this, the power supply was kept on for some time and it was stopped, and no bill was sent during this time. As per the Complainant, she repeatedly approached the Respondents to give the bill. They did not give the bill stating that they are changing their system and computerizing all the work and hence the bill is not being generated. As soon as the bill is made, it will be sent. Upon this she waited. In May 2017, a bill for payment of Rs.412,412.00 was sent to the Complainant. She was shocked, contacted Respondents and asserted that that her electric connection has been closed for the last two years and, despite not providing electricity, how the bill for over four lakh rupees was sent. Thereafter, the Respondents corrected the bill and replaced it with a duplicate bill of Rs.4,06,776.00 instead of Rs.4,12,412.00 and called upon the Complainant to deposit this amount. When she did not deposit the said amount stated in the Bill, the Respondents threatened to disconnect the connection, which signifies unfair trade, behavior and lack of service. She, therefore, sought the bill amount to be corrected, the electricity connection to be restored and the amount of crop damaged of Rs.10,00,000.00 to be paid, the notice sent to the Complainant should be canceled and Rs.25,000.00 spent by her to go again and again at Respondent's office should be given and the cost of the complaint including Rs.2,00,000.00 for mental harassment.