State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd vs Trilochan Singh on 23 May, 2016
Daily Order FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH. First Appeal No.972 of 2015 Date of Institution: 27.08.2015 Date of Decision: 23.05.2016 1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its CMD, The Mall Patiala. 2. PSPCL, through its S.E, Gurdaspur 3. PSPCL, through its XEN, Gurdaspur 4. PSPCL, Sub Urban Division, Gurdaspur, through its SDO. Appellants/Opposite parties Versus Trilochan Singh, Advocate, Chamber No.193, District Courts, Gurdaspur. Respondent/Complainant First Appeal against order dated 29.06.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur. Quorum:- Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri.J.S. GILL, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Vishnav Gandhi, Advocate For the respondent :EX-parte. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-
Aggrieved by order dated 29.06.2015 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Gurdaspur (in short, the District Forum), the appellants of this appeal (the opposite parties in the complaint) have directed this appeal against the respondent of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint). The District Forum, Gurdaspur accepted the complaint of the complainant by directing the OPs- service providers to draw transparent and self illustrated consumption bills with the desired clarity, correctness and transparency and OPs were further directed to issue a detailed demand notice to complainant within a period of 30 days and giving the details of the impugned bill dated 22.11.2014 and 26.01.2015 and justification for charging of Rs.2210/- for only 22 units consumed by the complainant, besides Rs.3,000/- as compensation and cost of litigation. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the opposite parties now appellants in this appeal.
2. The complainant has filed the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that he is an Advocate at District Court Gurdaspur. He took possession of newly constructed chamber in District Complex in the month of June 2014. He availed services of OPs for installation of electric meter in chamber no.193 against security charges and installation charges. He requested OPs to release connection under DS Category, as profession of an advocate is not a trade. OPs refused to accept the request of the complainant and intentionally applied the category of NRS thereto. OPs issued two bills no.4617915A and 261154540 dated 26.01.2015 of 22 units amounting to Rs.2210/- under NRS Category. The imposition of commercial tariff of electricity on the office of complainant is absolutely wrong and erroneous. The complainant has, thus, filed complaint challenging the impugned bills dated 22.11.2014 and 26.01.2015 issued by OPs and directing them to issue fresh bills under DS Category for consumption of units and not for commercial category.
3. Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant. It was averred in the written reply that the complainant himself applied for connection under NRS Category at the time of filing the electricity connection form and demand notice was issued under NRS Category, which the complainant has complied with by depositing the security charges and service connection charges under the NRS Category. The minimum charges on NRS category is on the basis of connected load. The monthly minimum charges as per 1 kw is Rs.190/- per kilowatt under the rules and regulations of department. The office of Advocate also falls under the category of the NRS category. The OPs controverted other averments of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant tendered in evidence, his affidavit Ex.C-1 along with copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4. As against it; OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Harmanpreet Singh Gill PSPCL Sub Urban Gurdaspur Ex.OP-1 along with copies of documents Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-4. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Gurdaspur, accepted the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 29.06.2015. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Gurdaspur dated 29.06.2015, the OPs the present appellants, carried this appeal against the same.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as respondent is exparte in this appeal and have also examined the evidence on the record in this case.
6. The counsel for the appellants contended that District Forum has not appreciated that the bill was issued, as per guidelines of the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission. It was further submitted by the appellants that lawful demand of bills was raised from the complainant on the basis of commercial circular no.43/2014 dated 27.08.2014. It was further argued that each and every charge of consumption bill has been issued, as per guidelines of the Punjab Electricity Regulatory Commission in this regard.
7. We have to advert to evidence on the record to settle the controversy in this case. Affidavit of Trilochan Singh Advocate/complainant is Ex.C-1 on the record. Copies of electricity bills of NRS Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-5 are on the record. To counter this evidence, OPs relied upon affidavit of Sh. Harmanpreet Singh Gill PSPCL Sub Urban Gurdaspur on the record Ex.OP-1, Ex.OP-2 is General Conditions of Tariff and Schedules of Tariff, Ex.OP-4 is guidelines of Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission Chandigarh.
8. From appraisal of the above-referred evidence on the record, we find that District Forum has accepted the contention of the complainant that complainant is entitled to be charged for DS category instead of NRS category. The District Forum has found force in this contention of the complainant. The matter has been examined by Apex Court in " Chairman M.P Electricity Board and others versus Shiv Narayan," reported in 2005(3) Civil Court Cases Page 311, wherein it has been held that legal profession is not a commercial activity - Running of office by an Advocate in a building cannot be termed as commercial activity - Activity may be non-domestic, but it cannot be termed as commercial activity - Electricity rates fixed for commercial user cannot be charged - A professional activity must be an activity carried on by an individual by his personal skill and intelligence - Matter was referred to larger Bench by Apex Court on 24.08.2005. Bombay High Court has held in " Rajendra G. Shah versus Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd," reported in 2012(6) that office of lawyer's chartered accountant/doctor clinic - used for professional activities not for domestic use. Rajasthan High Court has examined this point in " Sajjan Raj Surana versus Jaipur Vidyut Nigam Ltd, " reported in 2002(3) RCR (Civil) Page 770 held that legal profession of practicing advocates being run in chamber or office in his own house or in any rented building in residential or commercial complex cannot be termed as a commercial establishment.
9. From evidence on the record, we find that complainant took possession of his chamber in the month of June 2014. Affidavit of complainant is also on the record regarding installment of electricity connection in his chamber. The chamber is located in the judicial complex, where Advocates are allotted chambers. The Larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided the matter on 27.10.2005 in Civil Appeal No.1065 of 2000 in case titled as Chairman M.P Electricity Board and others versus Shiv Narayan and another. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgment, taken out from the Internet, ruled that tariff entry classificates is into two categories "domestic and commercial and non-domestic purposes". This classification has been done statutorily in exercise of powers under Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. It was held that as the user is admittedly not 'domestic', it would fall in the category of "commercial and non-domestic". In such cases, even for "non-domestic use, commercial rates are to be charged. Exclusively running an office is clearly a "non-domestic" use.
10. In view of the circumstances of the case, the order of District Forum Gurdaspur, holding that office/chamber of Advocate in District Court Complex has to be charged for domestic use for consuming electricity, is against the ratio of the above cited judgment of Apex Court and it is to be charged for non-domestic or commercial tariff for consumption of electricity.
11. As a result of our above discussion, we accept the appeal of the appellant and by setting aside, the order of District Forum Gurdaspur dated 29.06.2015, the complaint filed by complainant now respondent in this appeal stands dismissed.
12. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.1500/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, if any, accrued thereon, be refunded by the registry to the appellant no.4 by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
13. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 19.05.2016 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
14. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (J.S.GILL) MEMBER May 23, 2016 (ravi)