Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/329/2020

JVVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vilasi Devi W/o Hanuman Meena - Opp.Party(s)

Paras Jain

09 Feb 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO:329/2020

 

Asstt.Engineer, A-2, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Sawaimadhopur

Vs.

Smt. Vilasi Devi w/o Hanuman Meena r/o Sherpur Road Surwal Tehsil & Distt. Sawaimadhopur (Raj.)

 

Date of Order 9.2.2021

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Banwari Lal Sharma-President

Hon'ble Mr.Ramphool Gurjar -Member

 

Mr.Paras Jain counsel for the appellant

Ms.Megha Yogi counsel for the respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA, PRESIDENT ):

 

2

 

The present appeal is preferred by the appellant non-petitioner against the impugned judgment dated 20.2.2020 which was passed by the learned DCF Sawaimadhopur in Complaint No. 420/2019 by which the learned DCF allowed the complaint of the respondent complainant and quashed the notice no.2142 dated 12.7.2019 and also quashed the electricity bill for the month of September 2019 issued against respondent complainant and directed the appellant non-petitioner to issue amended bill considering electricity supply for six hours. It is also ordered that regarding 24 hours electricity supply complainant may be informed and it may be continued on her will after giving opportunity of hearing to her. It has also ordered that Rs.5000/- be also paid on account of mental agony and litigation expenses to the complainant.

 

Brief facts of the case are that respondent complainant is having agriculture electric connection a/c no. 1517/0082 for 7.50 H.P. load which is continue from 2010. The electricity supply is being continue for 5-6 hours daily by the appellant. Thereafter all of sudden a notice was issued by the appellant non-petitioner stating therein that your electricity connection is for 24 hours supply while you are paying consumption charges

3

 

considering the supply for six hours only. Therefore,a demand was raised for Rs.98,476/- and 15 days time was given for depositing the same. The complainant pleaded in the complaint that she is resident of village Surwal which is completely rural area and the agriculture land is also situated in the rural area and bill was continuously issuing considering the fact that electricity supply is for six hours per day only and all of sudden without any notice appellant non-petitioner issued demand notice and apprised that her supply is for 24 hours and it is considered as urban area electric connection. The same may be quashed and set aside. An affidavit of complainant was also filed along with other documents with the complaint.

 

The complaint was registered and notice was issued to non-petitioner appellant. In its reply non-petitioner appellant pleaded that on 14.4.2019 the electricity bill amounting to Rs.695/- was paid by the complainant respondent and thereafter no bill was paid by the complainant. The electricity bills were raised according to electric consumption and complainant is responsible for depositing the bill amount. Initially on 12.7.2019 a notice was sent to the complainant for depositing tariff charge amounting to Rs.48,761/- which was

4

 

not deposited by the complainant. Thereafter in September 2019 bill amount was raised for Rs. 54,935/-. It is also pleaded that complainant's electricity connection is from 11 KV urban feeder Surwal wherefrom 24 hours agriculture electric supply is giving. Previously the bills were raised considering six hours electric supply for which 90 paisa per unit was charged and thereafter when the supply was started for 24 hours the bill was raised considering Rs. 2.45 per unit and considering this fact the demand notice was raised which does not require interference and it was prayed that complaint may be dismissed.

 

After hearing parties the learned DCF allowed the complaint considering this fact that no notice was given prior to raising the electricity rate of consumption of urban area supply by the appellant-non-petitioner.

 

Aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 20.2.2020 the appellant non-petitioner preferred this appeal.

 

Mr. Paras Jain learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant non-petitioner fairly considered the fact that the

5

 

issue involved in this case has already been heard and decided by the co-ordinate bench of this Commission and the earlier appeal of appellant being First Appel No. 327/2020 ( Asstt.Engineer, JVVNL Vs. Ahmed Noor) and other connected appeal of appellant non-petitioner has been dismissed. He also fairly considered that this matter also squarely covered by this earlier judgment of the co-ordinate bench.

 

Considering the fact that no notice was given by the appellant non-petitioner to the respondent complainant before converting the nature of electric connection from rural area to urban area and without giving notice the bill was raised. The co-ordinate bench did not interfere in the finding of the learned DCF. We are also in agreement with the finding of the co-ordinate bench and accordingly this appeal devoid merits which is hereby dismissed and the findings of the learned DCF is affirmed.

 

(R.P.Gurjar) (Banwari Lal Sharma)

Member President

nm