BEFORE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CIRCUIT BENCH, RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR


Appeal No. 2084/2008


Jagdish Narain S/o Late Shri Ramdeo Sharma, R/o Gram Dhingpur, Post Labana, Via Achrol, Tehsil Amer, Distt. Jaipur.

..Appellant-Complainant


VS


1.

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd, through Executive Engineer, Kunda, Amer (Jaipur).
2.

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., through Chief Engineer, near Ram Mandir, Station Road, Jaipur.
3.

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., through Asstt. Engineer (Vigilance), Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.

..Respondents-Non-applicants


Before:

Mr. G.S. Hora, Presiding Member

Mr. Sikandar Punjabi, Member


Present:

Mr. K.S. Sharma, counsel for the Appellant

Mr. Mukesh Goyal, counsel for the Respondents


ORDER Dated:28.05.2009


PER Mr. G.S. HORA, PRESIDING MEMBER


This appeal arises out of the order dated 21.10.2008 passed by the learned District Forum, Jaipur-I, Jaipur whereby the complaint of the Complainant was dismissed.


It was alleged in the complaint that in August, 2007, Lineman Nanak Ram came to his house and illegally demanded Rs. 2,100/-. When the demand was not fulfilled, he removed the meter from its place and put it on the ground. A complaint was made to the Asstt. Engineer concerned, who assured the Complainant that the meter would be restored to its original position. It has further been alleged that after few days, Lineman Nanak Ram along with other employees came to his house and took away the meter and the cable. It has further been stated by the Complainant that on 27.10.2007, the employees of the Non-applicant Nigam came into vehicles, disconnected the connection and took away the meter and the cable. On being asked, the Complainant was informed that he hadcommitted

2


theft of electricity, therefore, the meter was removed. The version of the Complainant is that no theft of electricity was committed and alleging deficiency in service has claimed compensation and other reliefs such as restoration of connection and litigation etc.


The version of the Non-applicant has been that the Complainant caught committing theft twice. On 2.9.2007 when the checking was made at the Complainant's place, it was found that the electricity was being consumed directly from the power line without any reading in the meter. The vigilance checking report Annexure R-2 was prepared and the power connection was disconnected. Again on 27.10.2007, the vigilance checking was conducted and again it was found that the electricity was being consumed by the Complainant even after disconnection. Vigilance checking report Annexture R-3 was prepared.


From the documents available on record, it appears that the Complainant was involved in theft of electricity and therefore the power was disconnected. Even at this stage, he did not restrained himself and on 27.10.2007 again he was found committing theft of power directly from the power line.


Keeping in view the facts mentioned above, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of Non-applicant by disconnecting the power connection of the Complainant.


In the result, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned District Forum;. The appeal deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.



Member Presiding Member



Hira Lal