AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (O & M) BEAWAR DISTT. AJMER RAJASTHAN Vs. NARAINI DEVI W/O JAGDISH PRASHAD, R/O VILL. MAILPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition, the impugned order dated 07.10.2015, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in FA No. 376/2015, "Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Naraina Devi , has been challenged, vide which, while dismissing the said appeal, the order passed by the District Forum Ajmer on 19.02.2015 in consumer complaint No. 286/2013, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

(2.) The complainant/respondent Naraini Devi, obtained a domestic electricity connection from the opposite party (OP) and according to her, she used to regularly pay the electricity bills raised by this company. As stated in the complaint, she had already got dug a bore and got installed a diesel engine of Kirlosker company in a separate room, and this arrangement was being used for irrigation of her agricultural land. The case of the complainant is that she never used the said electricity connection for agricultural purposes. However, the OP sent her a letter dated 07.05.2013, by which they asked her to deposit a sum of Rs. 57,167/-, saying that as per inquiry report dated 15.02.2013, carried out by their Vigilance Department, she had been found using the said domestic connection for agricultural purposes. The complainant asked for a copy of the said vigilance report, but the same was not supplied to her. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking direction to the OP, not to recover the sum of Rs. 57,167/- and to give a direction that the officials should not disconnect her electricity connection.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the OP by filing a written statement before the District Forum, in which they stated that a vigilance party headed by a Junior Engineer found on inspection on 15.02.2013 that the complainant was using her domestic connection for agricultural purposes, which amounted to theft of electricity u/s 135 of the Electricity Act. The respondent was asked to pay a sum of Rs. 57,167/- consisting of Rs. 12,240.00 as compounding amount and Rs. 44,927/- as civil liability. She was found utilising 4.54 KW of load, whereas only 1 KW load had been sanctioned to her. The OP also stated that the consumer fora did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in question.