Faquir Chand vs S.D.O. (OP) SUB DIVISION, HVPN

PETITIONER in these two revision petitions was the complainant whose complaint was allowed against which appeals were filed by both the parties before the State Commission where while the appeal filed by the respondent, H.V.P.N. was partly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner for grant of compensation along with interest was dismissed.

BRIEF facts necessary to understand the case are that the petitioner has a three phase electricity connection from the respondent for over two decades with which he runs a flour mill and a Saw Mill. The meter installed for the purpose got burst which was not replaced in spite of repeated requests. In fact against an average of Rs. 1,000/- or so per meter, he was issued with a bill of Rs. 26,302/- in July, 1996 which was further enhanced to Rs. 29,804/- in the Bill issued in August, 1996. It was also the case of the petitioner/complainant that the respondent had been charging Rs. 53/- p.m. as line-charges for the last 23 years which it cannot charge, hence this need to be refunded. On all these grounds on a complaint being filed, the District Forum after hearing both the parties directed refund of "Service Line Charges" from the date when the Transformer No. 2 village Gari as shown in the sketch placed on file by the O.Ps. along with interest @ 12% p.a. Two separate appeals were filed by the parties. The State Commission through a common order modified the order of the District Forum and directed refund of line charges for a three years period as per the instructions on the subject issued by the respondent. The appeal filed by the petitioner for grant of compensation of Rs. 5,000/- was dismissed. It is in these circumstances that these two separate revision petitions have been filed. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order of the District Forum was correct as it was based on facts/material on record. In fact he should be compensated for harassment caused to him. On the other hand it was argued by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the State Commission''s order is as per law and need to be maintained.

We see on record that three reliefs were sought by the petitioner before the District Forum. Two issues, one that of bill amount and second about installation of new meter has been resolved; only point left for adjudication related to line charges. Nothing has been shown to us by the petitioner that service charges can be refunded beyond three years. What the State Commission has done is to act within the instructions on the subject. We cannot expect the State Commission to go beyond the Rule/Regulation/Instructions on the subject. Since nothing to the contrary has been shown by the petitioner, we see no material before us to interfere with the order of the State Commission, which is in conformity with the instructions of the subject. No jurisdictional error has been shown to call for our interference with the order of the State Commission. The order of the State Commission is upheld and both the revision petitions are dismissed as being devoid of merits. No orders as to costs. Revision Petitions dismissed.