JUDGMENT

AVM JONNALAGADDA RAJENDRA, AVSM, VSM (Retd)

1. This Revision Petition is filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act”) against the Order dated 07.07.2021 by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (“State Commission”) in FA No.142/2016 vide which the State Commission dismissed the Appeal preferred by OPs and affirmed the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barmer (“District Forum”) Order dated 23.06.2016 in CC No. 103/2014.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

3. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainants, are that they had applied for release of electricity connections under the NDS Scheme, pursuant to which the Opposite Parties informed them that at least two applicants were required for release of the connections. Accordingly, one application was submitted in the name of Complainant No. 1 and another in the name of his mother, Smt. Antro Devi. A demand notice was thereafter issued by the OPs. In compliance of the same, Complainant No.1 deposited ₹1,24,500 on 11.08.2011 and Complainant No.2 deposited ₹1,500. Upon deposit of the demanded amounts, separate electricity connections were released in the names of the complainants, and all electricity consumption bills were duly paid by them up to December, 2013, with no outstanding dues. However, in the bill issued for February, 2014, an amount of ₹25,125 was reflected as payable in Column No.17, which, according to the complainants, was illegal and unwarranted. Aggrieved thereby, they approached the OPs seeking rectification of the said bill. But, the error was neither corrected, nor any satisfactory explanation furnished. Alleging deficiency in service, the Complainants sought directions for rectification of the bill dated 03.02.2014, restoration of the disconnected electricity connection and compensation of ₹80,000 for mental agony along with ₹5,000 towards litigation expenses by filing a complaint before the District Forum.

4. On being issued notice, OPs contended that although the said connections were released in October, 2011, an internal audit conducted by the Assistant Engineer (Audit) for the years 2009–10 and 2010–11 revealed that a sum of ₹50,520 was recoverable towards the cost of the transformer. The said amount was accordingly reflected in the bill and the complainants were duly notified to deposit the same. Upon their failure to do so, the amount was debited to their account and the electricity connection was disconnected on 18.03.2014. The OPs contended that the demanded amount pertains to the lawful recovery of transformer installation charges and, therefore, the OP sought for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5. The learned District Forum vide Order dated 23.06.2016, partly allowed the complaint with the following order:

“ORDER

1. Accordingly, the complaint filed as by the complainants under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is accepted and the Electricity Bill issued against Khata No. 2209-0071 dated 03.02.2014 as also the Electricity Bill issued against Khata No. 2209-0072 dated 03.02.2014 wherein an amount of Rs. 25,125/- has been wrongly added, is reduced, and the respondents are directed to rectify both the aforesaid bills and the respondents are further directed to restore forthwith the electricity connections disconnected by them and for mental agony and torcher the respondents are directed to give a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each to the complainants besides a sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards litigation expenses. The compliance of this order be done within 1 month from today otherwise the aforesaid amounts shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from 02.04.2014.

2. Order announced in open court on this 23.06.2016 (Extract from translated copy)

6. Being aggrieved by the District Forum Order, the OPs filed Appeal No. 142/2016 and the State Commission vide Order dated 07.07.2021 dismissed the Appeal, with the following o