1. The present Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 06-05-2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench No.03, Rajasthan at Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) whereby the Appeal preferred by the Complainant/Respondent herein has been allowed and the Complainant was directed to deposit the average amount of consumption on the basis of six months from July, 2009 to November, 2009 and the excess amount of Rs.35,000/- which has been deposited by Complainant for this period may be adjusted in future. 2. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Ms. Apeksha Tiwari, and Mr. Sandeep Sharma, the Learned Counsel for the Complainant/Respondent herein and have perused the impugned order passed by the State Commission. 3. It was submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that the bill which has been raised by the Petitioners are based on the actual consumption of the electricity done by the Complainant/Respondent herein and there is only question of accounting and, therefore, the dispute could not have been adjudicated upon by the Consumer Fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 4. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Learned Counsel for the Complainant/Respondent herein submitted that the Petitioners had been raising the electricity bills in an arbitrary manner for the units actually consumed by the Complainant/Respondent herein. He invited our attention to an information obtained by the Complainant under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 which is filed as Annexure -A3 (page 55 of the paper book) wherein it has been mentioned that for the month of November, 2009, the current reading is 18959 units and the previous reading is 18959, meaning thereby that both the reading are the same whereas the consumption of units have been shown as 2884 units which according to the Learned Counsel for the Complainant/Respondent herein could not be the position. According to him, when the previous reading and the current reading is same, there is no question of consuming 2884 units. 5. On a query being put to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, she admitted that the previous reading and the current reading for the month of November, 2009 was the same, she was unable to give any reply as to why the Petitioner has raised a bill for 2889 units. That being the position, we are of the considered opinion that the meter was defective and, therefore, the State Commission was perfectly justified in directing the Complainant/Respondent herein to deposit the average consumption of units for the months of July, 2009 to November, 2009 and the excess amount of Rs.35,000/- which has been deposited be adjusted in the future. 6. We do not find any legal infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission which is based on appreciation of evidence and material placed on record and does not require interference in our revisional jurisdiction. The Revision Petition fails and is dismissed. |
