JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. Vs. SHARIF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent /complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

(2.) Very briefly the facts leading to filing the complaint were that the complainant had an electric connection having Khata No. 1606/205. It appears that somewhere in 1997, vigilance team of the petitioner carried out a raid and found that meter was tampered with and a case of theft of electricity was fixed, based on which additional demand was raised and when the matter was not getting settled between the parties, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who dismissed the complaint on the ground that since it involves a case of theft of electricity, hence they refused to entertain the complaint and dismissed it. On an appeal filed by the respondent/complainant before State Commission, it was allowed and the bills raised by the petitioner for the period of February and March 1999 were set aside. Aggrieved by this order this revision petition has been filed before us.

(3.) We heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the material on record. When we see the written version filed by the petitioner before the State Commission, two things become very clear - firstly that the respondent had an electricity connection bearing Khata No. 1606/205 but due to a computer error it was recorded as if the petitioner had two connections bearing Khata No. 1606/205 and 2206/102. It is clearly mentioned in the para No. 3 of the written version filed by the petitioner Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., before the District Forum, that the respondent had only one connection bearing Khata No. 1606/205. Under the head special submissions made by the petitioner it is clearly mentioned that when the vigilance raid was made on the premises of the respondent / complainant on 27.11.1997, the glass of the meter was found to be broken leading to the conclusion that he was involved in theft of electricity. This stand of the petitioner is belied by the Inspection Report of the Vigilance Team on 27.11.1997, which clearly relates to Khata No. 2206/102. In these circumstances, the respondent could not have been held guilty of any theft of electricity as this did not relate to the respondent/complainant.