The court emphasized the importance of following legal procedures and considering the impact of actions on the affected party, as well as the relevance of relevant legal provisions and court orders in reaching a decision.

ORDER

Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member—The Complainant/Respondent - Gopal Lal filed Consumer Complaint No. 171/2001 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Udaipur, Rajasthan saying that he obtained an electricity connection vide Consumer No. 21124 from Petitioner/Opposite Party No. 1 who was Assistant Engineer of the Petitioner Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Sub-Division, Mavali. Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 are also officers of the said Nigam. The complainant made a deposit of Rs. 4,500 vide Demand Note No. 456 dated 19.7.2002 with OP-1 and also submitted a 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) from the concerned Municipal Committee which is arrayed as OP-2 in the complaint. The said electric connection was however, disconnected on 21.1.2001 because the OP-2 - Municipal Committee withdrew their NOC, following a complaint made by OP-4 - Bhanwar Lal Mainaria who claimed to be the owner of the shop, in question. It is made out that there was dispute between the complainant and OP-4 regarding the ownership of the shop and the said dispute was decided by the Additional District Judge, Udaipur vide order dated 5.3.2005 in a suit for eviction filed by OP-4. The learned Judge did not consider OP-4 Bhanwar Lal Mainaria as owner of the said shop and the complainant as his tenant. Following the order of Civil Court, the electric connection was restored by the OP-Nigam on 7.4.2005. The complainant sought compensation from the OPs alleging that they had wrongly disconnected his power supply and that the Municipal Committee had wrongly withdrawn the NOC issued in his favour. Since the complainant was deprived of electric supply facility from 21.1.2001 till 7.4.2005 i.e. for a period of more than four years, he was entitled to damages from OPs. The District Forum vide order dated 17.2.2006, dismissed the complaint, saying that the complainant had failed to file ownership papers from the Authorities.

2. Being aggrieved against this order, the complainant challenged the same before the State Commission by way of first appeal. The State Commission decided the appeal in favour of the complainant, observing that the complainant had undergone mental tension and harassment because his electric connection remained disconnected for almost four years. The State Commission imposed a sum of Rs. 20,000 upon OP-2 Municipal Committee and another sum of Rs. 30,000 upon the Petitioner-Nigam holding them liable to pay such amounts to the complainant as compensation. Being aggrieved against this order, the OP-Nigam is before me by way of the present revision petition.

3. During hearing before me, it was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the complainant had failed to provide them any document which could prove his ownership of the shop, in question. The learned Counsel stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of petitioner because they had released the electric connection to the complainant when no objection Certificate dated 7.6.2000 was issued in his favour by the OP-2 Municipal Committee. However, on the basis of the complaint by OP-4 Bhanwar Lal, the Municipal Committee withdrew the NOC vide their letter dated 12.1.2001. The petitioner asked the complainant to produce documents of his ownership or in the alternative, to submit an affidavit of tenancy along with security of Rs. 2,400 within a week. Since the complainant did not submit the documents, nor deposited the said amount, the electric connection was disconnected. The direction give by the State Commission for making payment of Rs. 30,000 by way of compensation to the complainant was not in accordance with law.

4. On the other hand, the complainant/respondent who appeared in person stated that since the electric connection had been wrongly disconnected by the petitioner, he had to suffer a lot, for which he was entitled for compensation from the opposite parties. The decision of the Civil Court was also in his favour which indicated clearly that the ele