IMPORTANT POINT
National Commission does not act as Appellate Forum and cannot reappreciate evidence unless there is some jurisdictional error.

ORDER

Sudip Ahluwalia, Presiding Member.—This Revision Petition has been filed against the impugned Order dated 15.02.2016 passed by the Ld. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh in Appeal No. 3269/2003 vide which, the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed and the Order of the District Forum was upheld.

2. The factual background, in brief, is that the Complainant/Petitioner had obtained electricity connection bearing No. 14338 from the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., Bisawan Division, District Sitapur. A bill dated 19.08.2001 (No. 6002117) was received for Rs.13,201/- for the billing period 28.05.2001 to 28.06.2001, against which he deposited Rs.7,000/- on 20.08.2001, receipt of which was duly acknowledged (Receipt No. 06 at Sr. No. 024124). As per the Complainant, only Rs.6,201/- remained due. The grievance arises from the events of 11.09.2001 when the Opposite Party No. 1/Respondent No. 1, the area Lineman, accompanied by another person, allegedly visited the Complainant’s residence and demanded the full dues of Rs.13,201/-. Upon being informed that partial payment had already been made and the balance would be cleared after the Complainant’s father’s return on 17.09.2001, the Opposite Party No. 1 insisted on immediate payment and threatened disconnection. Despite repeated pleas, he agreed to withhold disconnection only if directed in writing by the Opposite Party No. 2/Respondent No. 2, the concerned Authority.

3. Subsequently, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No. 2, the SDO, and submitted a written request seeking time till 20.09.2001 to clear the balance dues. Oral assurances were given by the SDO to that effect, and the Opposite Party No.1 was accordingly directed not to disconnect the supply. However, in alleged disregard of these instructions and owing to personal mala fides, the Opposite Party No.1 disconnected the electricity connection, purportedly for want of a Rs.500/- bribe. The Complainant alleges that such action was discriminatory as other Consumers with significantly higher dues (Rs.20,000/- and above) continued to enjoy uninterrupted supply. It is the case of the Complainant that the illegal disconnection, despite partial payment and granted extension, caused him grave mental harassment, physical discomfort, and disrupted his livelihood, resulting in an alleged financial loss of Rs.20,000/-. Aggrieved with the same, he filed his Complaint before the Ld. District Forum, Sitapur.

4. The District Forum vide its Order dated 07.11.2003 partly allowed the Complaint and directed the Opposite Party No. 3/Respondent No. 3 to pay to the Complainant the amount of Rs.3,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards litigation costs, and after adjusting the due amount, to subsequently restore the electricity connection. The Opposite Party No. 3 was further directed to recover the amount from the Opposite Party No. 1. The Petitioner then filed his Appeal before the Ld. State Commission, which vide the impugned Order dismissed it and affirmed the Order of the District Forum.

5. We have heard the Ld. Amicus Curiae for the Petitioner and perused the material available on record.

6. Ld. Amicus Curiae has argued that on 11.09.2001, the Opposite Party No. 1, the Area Lineman, visited the Complainant’s premises and demanded the entire billed amount. Upon being informed of the partial payment and the Complainant’s intention to pay the balance upon his father’s return by 17.09.2001, the Opposite Party No.1 nevertheless insisted on immediate payment and threatened disconnection. The Complainant approached the SDO/Opposite Party No.2, submitted a written request, and was orally granted time until 20.09.2001 to clear the dues. The SDO also directed the Opposite Party No.1 not to disconnect the supply. However, on 13.09.2001, during the Complainant’s absence, the Opposite Party No.1 disconnected the electricity connection allegedly out of personal malice and demanded Rs.500/- as a ‘convenience fee’