Uttarakhand State Commission Dismisses Deficiency In Service Complaint Against Uttarakhand Power Corporation
The Uttarakhand State Fee, presided by Ms. Kumkum Rani and Mr. C.M. Singh, dismissed the grievance in opposition to Uttarakhand Energy Company for deficiency in service and overruled the District Fee’s order.
Transient Details of the Case
The complainant took an electrical energy connection from the Uttarakhand Energy Company after depositing thrice the safety quantity. Later, the Energy Company disconnected her connection with out discover and eliminated the meter. The complainant knowledgeable the officers, however they took no motion. When the division refused to reconnect the provision, she filed a grievance earlier than the District Fee. The District Fee allowed her grievance and directed the company to revive her electrical energy connection inside one month. It additionally ordered a compensation of ₹2,000 for the inconvenience triggered.
Contentions of Uttarakhand Energy Company
The Energy Company argued that the complainant acquired the connection by declaring herself a tenant and agreeing to disconnection if disputes arose. She didn’t pay the electrical energy payments. A neighborhood ashram knowledgeable the division that she had misled them and was not a authorized tenant. Additionally they mentioned her husband was concerned in electrical energy theft and had dues pending from an earlier connection. The Company mentioned she by no means disclosed these info whereas making use of. They filed a police grievance in opposition to her husband. The Company claimed it disconnected the connection as a consequence of concealment of info, theft involvement, and pending dues, and argued there was no deficiency in service.
Observations by the State Fee
The State Fee discovered that the electrical energy connection was granted based mostly on a written assurance that the complainant was a tenant of the premises and that no dispute existed with the property proprietor. Nonetheless, it got here to gentle by the complainant’s personal affidavit {that a} tenancy dispute was pending in court docket on the time of utility. The Fee additionally famous that the complainant’s partner had a earlier electrical energy connection in his title, which had been disconnected as a consequence of electrical energy theft, and a police grievance had been filed. Important dues amounting to over one lakh rupees had been nonetheless excellent on that connection. Regardless of this, the brand new utility made no point out of those info. Letters from native ashram authorities confirmed that the applicant was not a authorized tenant and had obtained the electrical energy connection by suppressing info. The Fee discovered this to be a clear case of misrepresentation and concealment of fabric info.
As for the District Fee’s path {that a} show-cause discover ought to have been issued earlier than disconnection, the State Fee disagreed. It held that in instances involving fraud, concealment, and electrical energy theft, there isn’t a authorized requirement to problem a discover earlier than disconnection. The division had acted inside its rights to disconnect the provision.
The Fee concluded that the District Fee had ignored essential info and authorized ideas. In consequence, the enchantment was allowed, the District Fee’s order was put aside, and the patron grievance was dismissed.
Case Title: Uttarakhand Energy Company Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Smt. Sudeshna Devi
Case Quantity: SC/5/A/5/2019
