NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION  

                                 NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO.  4554 OF 2009

(From the order dated 25.08.2009  in Appeal  No. 820 of 2009 of the   State Consumer Disputes Redressal  Commission,  Madhya Pradesh)

Madhya Pradesh Poorva Kshetra

Vidyut Vitran Company Limited.                …….Petitioner.                               

                       

              Versus

The Hindustan Krishi Sewa Kendra

through Owner Abdul Hakim and Abdul Aziz

R/o near Bus Stand, Chattarpur,

Madhya Pradesh                                   …….Respondent.

BEFORE:

   HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

                HON’BLE MR.SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER
       

For the Petitioner(s) :    Mr. Suryanarayana Singh proxy counsel

for Ms. Pragati Neekhra,  Advocate.

For the respondent(s)      Mr. Arvind Gupta, Advocate.

                                                                          

 

Dated :  07^th September, 2011.

                                      ORDER

PER JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

                       In the present revision petition, there is challenge to order dated 25.8.2009, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (for short as ‘State Commission’). State Commission, vide impugned order  dismissed the appeal against  order dated 4.4.2009, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chattarpur, Madhya Pradesh(for short as ‘District Forum’).

2.        Respondent/complainant has taken two electricity connections for welding purposes, for which he was paying the bills regularly. In 2008, there was a drought. The agricultural activities thus came to stand still. Subsequently, respondent did not have work of welding and his business suffered. On 10.06.2008, petitioner company checked his electricity meter in his absence. It also did not disclose to the respondent  result of the examination. On  23.06.2008, a bill for the sum of Rs. 63,772/- was sent and electricity of respondent was disconnected, without any notice to him. Accordingly, complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum.

3.        Petitioner in its reply has stated that respondent was found using load in excess of the sanctioned load from one connection having shifted the full sanctioned load from another connection. Accordingly, case under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, was registered against the respondent. On 10.06.2008, Vigilance team of petitioner inspected the premises, on testing the meter three phase were found to be blocked. Panchnama was prepared, on which one Amzad Khan has put his signatures. Having served notice to the respondent, meter was tested in the laboratory in the presence of Amzad Khan. Thus, complaint is liable to be rejected

4.        District Forum allowed the complaint of respondent and held;

 “Thus, the provisional assessing order issued by the opposite party without following the due process of law arbitrary without providing opportunity of hearing to the complainant, the same is not entitled to be maintained as per law. Opposite party have initiated the said proceedings illegally & irregularly towards their consumer-complainant. Thus have adopted the unfair trade practice and have committed deficiency in service towards complainant. Therefore, it would be justifiable to set-aside the provisional assessing order dated 12.06.08 issued by the opposite party’.

5.               Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, petitioner filed  appeal before the State Commission. Vide impugned order, Sate Commission dismissed the appeal. It observed;

3.        “ Clause 10.18 of the M. P. Electricity Supply Code, 2004 law down that “ if a consumer fails in payment of any bill in full, without the approval of the authorized officer, by the due date, the service connection of the consumer will be liable to be disconnected on temporary basis. Before disconnection of a consumer’s installation, the Board would serve a written notice of fifteen clear days. Effort should be made that before disconnecting a domestic connection, an adult member of the family is informed. If the proof of removal of the cause for disconnection is produced to the satisfaction of the Licensee’s employee deputed for the purpose, the supply shall not be disconnected. In this regard, the licensee shall strictly follow the provisions of Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003.”

4.                      It does not appear that personnel of the Board may ever served any notice on the complainant and at their caprice disconnected the installation. Under these circumstances, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The appeal is dismissed”.

6.        There is nothing on record to show that any notice was ever served upon respondent. Though, the case of petitioner is that a notice was served upon Amzad Khan son of Abdul Aziz and his signatures were obtained on the memo.

7.        Abdul Haqeem, the owner of respondent’s  firm has stated on oath that, no person by the name of Amzad Khan is  there in his family.

8.     District Forum, which recorded the statement of respondent/complainant, in its order  held;

 “But in the statement of complainant Abdul Haqeem recorded on oath it has been categorically stated that no  person by the name of Amzad Khban is available in his family, it has not been confronted on behalf of the opposite party. Opposite party have not produced any relevant document about the fact that Amzad Khan has been authorized by the complainant. Therefore, proceedings concerning to the inspection of site by the flying squad have been initiated in the absence of complainant and his authorized representative, hence its veracity seems to be suspicious, particularly when concerning officer of the flying squad and witnesses of the memo have not been examined in evidence on behalf of opposite party”.

9.        Since, service of mandatory notice upon  respondent has not been proved by the petitioner, both the Foras below rightly rejected the contentions of the petitioner.

10        Under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, this Commission can interfere with order of the State Commission, where such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. There is no illegality and material irregularity on the part of  the State Commission in this case.

11.   For the reasons stated above, order passed by the State Commission is upheld and  revision petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-.( Rupees Ten Thousand Only).

12.        Petitioner is directed to deposit the costs by way of  a cross cheque  Rs. 10,000/-( Rupees Ten Thousand only)  in the name of “Consumer Legal Aid Account” within four weeks from today.

13.   In case, costs are not deposited within the prescribed period, petitioner shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization.

14.        List on 14^th October, 2011, for compliance.

       

……………………………J.

(V.B. GUPTA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

……………………………...

(SURESH CHANDRA)

    MEMBER

SSB