Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/190/2021

Jiyaulla S/o Bakuulla - Complainant(s)

Versus

JVVNL - Opp.Party(s)

Shakil Ahmmad

26 May 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,JAIPUR

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 190/2021

 

Jiyaullah s/o late Bakaullah r/o Mohalla Batvalan, Purani Tonk, Tehsil & Distt. Tonk Rajasthan.

Vs.

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd, through A.En., Tonk & ors.

 

Date of Order 26.5.2022

Before:

Hon'ble Mr. Atul Kumar Chatterjee- Acting President

Hon'ble Mr. Ramphool Gurjar- Member

Hon'ble Mr, Sanjay Tak- Member

 

Present:

Mr.Saleem Ahmed learned counsel for the appellant

Mr. Sarvesh Jain learned counsel for the respondents

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MR.ATUL KUMAR CHATTERJEE, ACTING PRESIDENT )

2

 

This appeal has been filed by the appellant/ complainant against the judgment of learned District Consumer Commission, Tonk dated 29.1.2021 which was passed in Complaint Case No. 438/2018.

 

Briefly stated the relevant facts of this case are that the appellant/complainant filed a complaint against the respondent JVVNL alleging that JVVNL Tonk had issued bill of September 2018 for Rs. 33573/- saying that the meter was defective whereas he had been depositing his monthly bills regularly. Upon inquiry no satisfactory reply was given and a threat to disconnect the electricity connection was given.

 

The respondents/opponents had in their reply pleaded that on 23.2.2013 a surprise checking was done of the complainant's electricity connection wherein it was found that theft of electricity was being committed by putting wires on electricity line directly and VCR No. 18644/38 was filled and on the basis of the VCR amount of compounding and civil liability Rs. 33298/- was assessed. A notice dated 27.2.2013 and reminders dated 16.6.2017 and 13.8.2018 were given but despite receipt of these notices neither the complainant nor his

3

 

family members deposited the due amount therefore, in the electricity bill of September 2018 the VCR amount was shown in column no. 14 and the bill was issued.

 

During the pendency of the appeal the appellant has submitted his affidavit alongwith affidavit of a neighbour Allaudeen Khan wherein it is stated that the persons named in VCR viz. Sh. Salim, Gulfam, Samim s/o Bakaullah are not complainant's family members. This Commission had given an opportunity to respondent JVVNL to verify the facts of these affidavits. Today the learned counsel for the respondents JVVNL has submitted a counter affidavit of Sh. Ramdhan Meena, A.En. Jaipur Discom Peeplu ( the then J.En. JVVNL Tonk City II ). In this affidavit the deponent Sh. Ramchan Meena has stated that on 23.2.2013 the ladies and children present on spot did not reveal their name and they revealed the names of Salim, Gulfam, Samim according to which name of these persons were mentioned in the VCR. In this affidavit it has also been stated that on the spot the sons of Bakaullah were committing theft of electricity by putting wires directly on the electricity line.

 

4

 

During the course of arguments learned counsel for the appellant /complainant has more or less reiterated the facts of memo of appeal as arguments whereas the learned counsel for the respondents JVVNL has vehemently opposed these contentions and has referred to the judgment of Hon'ble apex court in Appeal (civil ) 2325 of 2006 ( Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Mam Chand ) decided on 28.4.2006 and judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 10313/2011 ( Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. through Executive Engineer, Alwar & ors. Vs. District Consumer Forum, Alwar ) decided on 8.11.2016.

 

We have pondered upon the rival contentions and have gone through the entire record.

 

From the original record of the learned DCC Tonk we find that in the complaint the appellant/complainant has no where mentioned about the VCR dated 23.2.2013 and has simply stated that the JVVNL Tonk had issued the bill of September 2018 showing the meter to be defective but in reply the respondents/opponents have categorically stated that the amount of Rs. 33298/- was added/shown in the bill of

5

 

September 2018 as VCR amount and has also categorically stated that on 23.2.2013 upon surprise checking it was found that some persons were committing theft of electricity by putting wires directly on the main electricity line and as such amount of compounding and civil liability was assessed as Rs.33298/- and the same was sought to be recovered alongwith the bill of September 2018. From the record it is also found that the appellant/complainant had only submitted the bills of earlier months whereas the respondent JVVNL had submitted the documents relating to the surprise checking and the VCR, copy of the notice to deposit the VCR amount under Amnesty Scheme, copy of FIR, VCR, notices etc. have been submitted.

 

Since from the pleadings and evidence of the respondent JVVNL it has now become clear that the disputed amount Rs.33298/- shown in the disputed bill of September 2018 was relating to the VCR dated 23.2.2013 whereas appellant/complainant has alleged this amount to be added on the ground of meter being defective. The complainant has no where controverted the pleadings and evidence of the opponent JVVNL. From the judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent JVVNL as stated above, the legal

6

 

position is clear that in the matter of VCR the Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction. In our humble view this Commission cannot enter into the controversy as to whether the persons named in the VCR viz Salim, Gulfam, Samim s/o Bakaullah are related to appellant/complainant or not because it is evident from the record that on 23.2.2013 the theft was being committed through the electricity connection of appellant/complainant himself. In this background we are of the view that the learned DCC or this Commission do not have jurisdiction to interfere in the matters of theft of electricity therefore, we find that the learned DCC Tonk had rightly declined to interfere and has rightly dismissed the complaint of the appellant/ complainant.

 

On the basis of above discussions we are of the view that this appeal does not deserve to be allowed therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.

 

(Sanjay Tak) (Ramphool Gurjar) (A.K.Chatterjee)

Member Member Acting President

 

 

nm