AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member
The present Revision Petitions (RPs) have been filed by the Petitioners against Respondents as detailed above, under section 58 ( 1) ( b) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the similar orders dated 29.11.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’) in which order dated 27.09.2019 of the District Forum was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 29.11.2019 of the State Commission and 27.09.2019 of the District Forum.
As common issues are involved in all the 6 cases, they are taken up together. However, RP No. 365 of 2020 is taken as lead case for presenting facts and facts enumerated herein under are taken from RP 365 of 2020. For the sake of convenience, parties would also be referred to as they were arrayed before the District Forum.
Notice was issued to the Respondents on 10.08.2022. Petitioner filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 27.02.2024. On account of absence despite notice, Respondent was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 03.01.2024.
Facts of RP No. 365 of 2020
Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that Complainant applied to get an agricultural connection on 14.03.2018 in the office of OP(s) in respect of which, the complainant was directed to pay Rs.5000/- to the OP(s) on the same day, which complainant paid. OP(s) told the complainant that they would send her demand notice after conducting enquiry. The OP(s) sent a demand letter notice dated 26.03.2018 vide which complainant was directed to deposit Rs.30,025/-. The Complainant also deposited the same amount, after which the OP(s) issued an agricultural connection to the complainant. The complainant is using the said connection till today. There is no outstanding dues of the Complainant towards the OP(s). The OP(s) sent a notice dated 25.02.2019 to the Complainant as per agriculture reforms 2017 and directed her to deposit Rs.80,000/- for the said connection otherwise the said amount will be debited from the electricity bill of the complainant. The complainant requested the OP(s) to cancel the said notice but OP(s) refused to do so. The OP(s) forced the complainant to pay the amount of Rs.80,000/- as per Electricity Act but the complainant has already deposited the bill as per the demand letter issued by the OP(s) and OP(s) had installed the connection. Being aggrieved of the said act of the OP(s), the Complainant filed CC before the District Forum and District Forum vide order dated 27.09.2019 allowed the Complaint of the Complainant. Being aggrieved, the OP(s) preferred FA before the State Commission and State Commission vide order dated 29.11.2019 dismissed the Appeal of the OP(s). Hence the OPs are before this Commission now in the present RP.
In other 5 RPs, the facts are broadly same except the figures. The Complainant(s) have also mentioned that he / she is a consumer and the present connection has been taken by the complainant(s) from the OP(s) under Nagar Palika Niwai (Agricultural Farm House Scheme) and the OP(s) are not entitled to recover such amount under any circular and rules.) This point was not mentioned in RP No. 365 of 2020. )
Petitioners have challenged the said Order dated 29.11.2019 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:
i. From the perusal of contents of complaint and reply submitted by Petitioners, it comes out that the controversy involved in the case do not relate to the consumer dispute as defined u/s 2 ( c) of the Consumer Protection Act nor covered under the definition of defect and deficiency or service as given in Section 2 ( f), ( g) and ( o) of the Act.
ii. As per the facts of the complaint, it comes out that Petitioner demanded Rs.80,000/- from complainant for transformer which could not be added in demand due to bonafide mistake of clerk. hence the said amount was demanded. The said fact has not been properly examined by District Forum and State Commission.
iii. It is settled principal of law and natural justice that any omission or act done or cause due to bonafide mistake in accounts then it can be rectified at any stage subject to the limitation.
iv. A mistake in account is curable or rectifiable at any time but it is not a deficiency in service and hence the dispute raised by the complainant is not a consumer dispute. Further, it is not a case of complainant before the Forum that Petitioner demanded unreasonable demand.
v. The State Commission should have held that as per Electricity Act, 2003, the State Government, Energy Department issued Amended Agriculture Policy 2017 and as per the Act, 2003, the Section 108 sub-section (1), Rajasthan Electricity Control Commission issued the instruction that transformer cost of Rs.80,000/- be recoverable from the connection holder.
vi. The Complainant did not deposit the dues regarding the transformer as per terms and conditions for Supply of Electricity 2004 and filed the consumer complaint with ulterior motive.
7 Learned counsel for the Petitioner apart from repeating the points which have been stated in para 5, argued that on 27.08.2019, the Petitioner i.e. Assistant Engineer wrote a letter to the Junior Engineer giving instruction that those consumers who did not deposit their arrears till date, their connection will be disconnected.
We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission, District Forum and other relevant records. The Petitioners herein reiterated that non-mention of amount of Rs.80,000/- for the transformer was due to mistake of the clerk of Petitioner’s Department. State Commission has appropriately dealt with various contentions of the parties. In this case, there are concurrent findings of both the Fora below against the Petitioner herein. It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments[Ruby (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269, Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India and Ors. (2022) SCC OnLine SC 77, Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Another Vs. H & R Johnson (India ) Limited and Ors, (2016) 8 SCC 286, T. Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Anr. Vs. N. Madhava Rao and Ors. (2019) 4 SCC 608, Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Limited and Anr. (2022) 9 SCC 31] that revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission is extremely limited, it should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the provision i.e. when State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction so vested or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. It is only when such findings are found to be against any provisions of law or against the pleadings or evidence or are found to be wholly perverse, a case for interference may call for at the second appellate (revisional) jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction, the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission, which are on appreciation of evidence on record. Both the Fora Below have given well reasoned orders. During the hearing before this Commission, no bills or demand letters towards amount for transformer were shown. No rules permitting such charges were shown. We find no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order(s) of the State Commission. Hence, the same are upheld. Accordingly, all the six RPs are dismissed.
The pending IAs in the cases, if any, also stand disposed off.