Sudhir Kumar vs Managing Director, South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited & 2 Ors

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Sudhir Kumar against the order dated 12.04.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in Appeal No.303 of 2016.

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/petitioner had taken electric connection in the year 1994 from the opposite parties for his photostat shop. He was paying the bills regularly. On 01.06.2015, opposite party No.3/respondent No.3 without any reason or any particular ground disconnected the power supply of the Photostat shop.

Then the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum alleging that his electricity connection to the Photostat shop was disconnected without any reason by the opposite parties inspite of his regularly paying the bills. The District Forum, however, dismissed the complaint by observing that complainant has not suffered any loss as follows:-

"Further nothing is in details on the part of petitioner to show loss if any during the period of disconnection of electric line. Petitioner has always pleaded difficulty in running his business by using generator and never has pleaded closure of photostat shop due to disconnection of electric line. Nothing has line mentioned with regard to extra expenses, if any by using generator in absence of electric line and that said extra emplaces has not been charged from his consumer. That all the issues related with claim is vague not explained in any way and only expression of anger is placed for claim of loss in business."

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner preferred appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission has also agreed with the reasoning of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 12.04.2017.

Hence, the present revision petition.

The petitioner was not appearing and therefore, vide order dated 23.01.2018 last opportunity was granted to the petitioner to pursue the case on the next date and a copy of this order was sent to the petitioner by the Registry. Meanwhile, petitioner has sent a letter, which has been received on 22.05.2018, wherein the petitioner has stated that he is not able to attend the proceedings before this Commission and has requested to decide the matter based on the record. Accordingly, the matter was reserved for orders.

The petitioner has sent an application that he cannot attend the proceedings and he has requested that the matter be decided on the basis of the documents. It is seen from the reply of the opposite party No.3 filed before the District Forum that the following is stated:-

"I have to state in above mentioned matters that Sudhir Kumar had already electrical connection from civil court campus at that time (then) whole District consumers wire connected from town feeder. About one years High Court, Patna ordered that all courts should be provided separate electric supply from general people. Separate feeder was prepared for Lakhisarai court in which about 23-24 hours electricity is supplied during this period naked aluminium wire was replaced by covered wire. Thus electric connection of general consumer stopped. Since all private consumers in Civil court has to be deprived from electricity from special feeder those who supplied service wire were connected with town feeder. But Sudhir Kumar remained adamant for connection from special feeder which is not possible service wire was not given by consumer Sudhir Kumar due to which connection was not made from town feeder electric connection can be done after supply service wire by consumer from town feeder."

From the observation of the District Forum and from the reply given by the opposite party No.3, it is seen that the complainant is perhaps not facing any difficulty due to disconnection as he is running his Photostat shop with the genrator and he is not ready to take the connection from the tow feeder in compliance of the order passed by the High Court, Patna. In this background, I do not see any merit in the revision petition. Moreover, both the fora below have dismissed the complaint. The facts cannot be reassessed when there are concurrent findings of facts by the fora below and the scope under the revision petition becomes very limited in such cases as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following case:-

Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held the following:

"23. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons."

Based on the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the revision petition and accordingly, revision petition No.1424 of 2017 is dismissed in limine.