The court emphasized the obligation of the consumer to abide by the rules and pay charges regularly, and found that the allegation of theft was not substantiated.

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Rajan Roy,JJ.

Heard Sri R.D. Rastogi in person assisted by Sri Azhar Ikram, amicus curiae and Sri Amrendra Nath Shukla holding brief for Sri Prashant Arora, learned counsel for the Power Corporation.

2. This writ petition has been filed on 26.08.2016 challenging a judgment and order dated 09.04.2014 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi allowing Revision No. 4636 of 2010 filed by the respondent-Corporation on the ground that the matter pertains to electricity theft, therefore, it was not cognizable by the Consumer Forum, with liberty to the petitioner herein to avail appropriate remedy before the proper forum.

3. The explanation that has been given by the petitioner for approaching this Court belatedly i.e. after almost two and half years is not supported by any substantial explanation but on facts we are proceeding to consider the merits of the claim.

4. Further more, the Court finds from the records that the electricity connection is not in the name of the petitioner rather it is in the name of his son Rajiv Kumar Rastogi as is mentioned in para 53 of the written statement filed by the respondents before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Lucknow, a copy of which is on record.

5. From the record it is clear that the claim before the District Consumer Forum was lodged both by the petitioner and his Son Rajiv Kumar Rastogi jointly. The Electricity Department went up in appeal before the State Consumer Forum, but, the Appellate Forum found the appeal to be defective, inter alia, on account of the non-joinder of necessary party namely the son of the petitioner. The matter was taken up further before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by the respondents where also it was the petitioner who was impleaded and again the son of the petitioner in whose name the electricity connection stood had not been brought on record. It is in this background that it is the petitioner himself who has come up before this Court questioning the correctness of the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

6. The petitioner before us is 80 years old who appears in person.

7. The facts in brief are that the son of the petitioner R.K. Rastogi applied for electricity connection and deposited Rs. 4,000/- for the said purpose whereupon the connection was granted and the meter was installed in 1992, however, it is said that the meter installed was defective. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an application on 05.04.1992 to the concerned authority for rectification of the meter whereupon an endorsement was made on 07.04.1992 to the concerned official for replacing the same, as, the same was found defective after testing. This endorsement on the application referred herein above is part of the records as Annexure No. 4 to this writ petition and has not been denied by the opposite parties before the Forum nor before this Court. Inspite of the aforesaid the meter was neither replaced nor rectified. However, it is alleged that during inspection in March, 1999 it was found that the occupant of the premises (other than Shri R.K. Rastogi) was found using electricity directly from the electricity line. Accordingly, the same was disconnected. However, from the records it is evident that though there is such an assertion in the counter affidavit, but, there is nothing to show that any action was initiated against the concerned persons for the said theft of electricity. It is also said that at the time of said inspection the meter was showing a reading of 70.30 as on 07.03.1999, however, the petitioner submits that this reading was taken behind the back of the consumer, therefore, the same is not reliable at all. The opposite parties were under an obligation to rectify the meter or replace the same but did not do so and cooked up a story of electricity theft which is without any basis.

8. Learned counsel for the opposite parties informs that the meter was