State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Electricity Board vs Surjeet Singh S/O S. Parduman Singh on 27 November, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1204 of 2003.
Date of institution: 15.9.2003.
Date of decision : 27.11.2009
Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, Service through the Sub
Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Chabhal, District Amritsar.
.....Appellant.
Versus
Surjeet Singh S/o S. Parduman Singh S/o of Sh. Hazara Singh R/o Adda Chabhal,
Tehsil Tarn Taran, District Amritsar.
.....Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 07.08.2003
passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Amritsar.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Lt.Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Amit Kumar, Advocate for
Ms Dilraj Kaur, Advocate.
For the respondent : Sh. Vivek Sharma, Advocate.
JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT
Parduman Singh father of Surjeet Singh respondent was having electric connection bearing account No.G7/0190 with sanctioned load of 10 HP equivalent to 7.460 KW. It was later on got extended to 20 H.P. equivalent to 14.920 KW or say about 15 KW. It was under SP category. The respondent was residing in the same house. Parduman Singh had died and after his death, the respondent was the actual consumer. He was making payment of electricity bills regularly. Therefore, he was a consumer qua the appellants.
2. It was further pleaded that in March, 2001, the consumer to know that the appellants were charging MS tariff since February, 1999 for which, Parduman Singh father of the respondent had filed complaint No.582 of 2001 in First Appeal No.1204 of 2003 2 the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (In short, "the District Forum"). This complaint was accepted by the District Form vide order dated 19.11.2001 with costs of Rs.500/-. The District Forum ordered the refund of Rs.3050/-, although no specific amount was alleged by the father of the respondent. The appellants were also directed to charge the amount only as per SP tariff and not as per MS tariff. Instead of the refund of Rs.3050/-, the District Forum should have directed the appellants to refund the entire amount charged by the appellants in excess by applying MS tariff.
3. It was further pleaded that Parduman Singh had filed an execution application seeking implementation of the order dated 19.11.2001 for refund of the amount charged by the appellants in excess by applying MS category tariff. The said execution application was decided by the District Forum on 27.9.2002. The execution application was dismissed as fully satisfied. However, it was suggested to the respondent to file a fresh complaint for redressal of his grievances. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants, the respondent had filed the complaint against them in the District Forum, for refund of the amount already paid in excess. Interest and costs were also prayed.
4. The Appellants filed the written statement. It was admitted that Parduman Singh was having electric connection bearing account No.G7/0190 with sanctioned load of 7.460 KW which was later on enhanced to Rs.14.920 KW. The premises of the respondent were checked by the Senior Executive Engineer (Enforcement) on 4.2.1999 and it was found that the consumer was using the electric energy for running a Rice Sheller instead of Atta Chaki for which he had taken the electric connection. Since the consumer was using the electric connection for Mini Rice Sheller, therefore, the tariff applicable to Rice Sheller was applied.
5. It was admitted that Parduman Singh consumer had filed a complaint against the appellants. It was decided in his favour vide order dated 19.11.2001. The District Forum had directed to refund the amount charged by it vide memo no.2544 dated 24.3.1999. In compliance with the order dated 19.11.2001, the First Appeal No.1204 of 2003 3 appellants had stopped charging the tariff of the Rice Sheller from 19.11.2001 onwards and also refunded the amount in compliance with the order of the District Forum. The execution application No.54/2002 instituted on 4.3.2002 was dismissed by the District Forum as fully satisfied vide order dated 27.9.2002.
6. It was further pleaded that the appellants had charged the tariff of the Rice Sheller from the consumer from June, 1999 to September, 2001 when it was ordered to be stopped for which the complaint was filed by the respondent. The complaint was hopelessly time barred. The respondent was entitled only to the refund of amount charged after December, 2000. It was admitted that the appellants had refunded the amount of Rs.3050/- which was charged from the consumer vide letter no.2554. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
7. The respondent filed his affidavit as Ex.C1 and copy of order dated 27.9.2002 as Ex.C2.
8. On the other hand, the appellants filed the affidavit of Er.Manjit Singh, SDO, as Ex.R1 and affidavit of Pardeep Bansal, Revenue Accountant, as Ex.R2.
9. After considering the pleadings of the parties and the affidavits/documents produced on the file by them, the learned District Forum accepted the complaint vide impugned order dated 7.8.2003 with costs of Rs.500/- and directed the appellants to refund the amount charged in excess above the SP category with interest @ 12% P.A.
10. Hence, the appeal.
11. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 7.8.2003 be set aside.
12. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent was that there is no merit in the present appeal and that the same be dismissed.
13. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered. First Appeal No.1204 of 2003 4
14. It is not disputed that Parduman Singh was having electric connection bearing account No.G7/0190 with sanctioned load of 15 KW. It was of SP category. The electric connection of the respondent was checked by the Senior Executive Engineer on 4.2.1999 and the appellants had started charging for electric energy on MS tariff basis as the electric connection was used by the consumer for Rice Sheller instead of using the same for Flour Mill (Atta Chaki).
15. It was also admitted that Parduman Singh had filed a complaint (No.54/2002) against the appellants. It was accepted by the District Forum vide order dated 19.11.2001. The learned District Forum had directed the appellants to refund the amount of Rs.3050/- demanded vide notice no.2544 dated 24.3.1999 and directed the appellants to stop charging the MS tariff in place of SP tariff. The consumer had filed the execution application. It was disposed off by the learned District Forum vide order dated 27.9.2002 as the appellants had complied with the order.
16. The respondent filed a fresh complaint seeking refund of the entire amount charged in excess by the appellants on MS category instead of SP category for the period from June, 1999 to September, 2001. The appellants have pleaded that the complaint having been filed in 2002, the refund of the amount upto December, 2000 was barred by limitation. Even if this version of the appellants is accepted, the respondent is entitled to the refund for the period from January, 2001 to September, 2001.
17. The judgment dated 19.11.2001 qua the appellants has already become final between the parties under which, the appellants were held entitled only to charge SP tariff and not MS tariff.
18. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned District Forum has awarded the interest @ 12% P.A. which is on the higher side. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as "Dharampal & Others Vs U.P. State Road Transport Corporation", AIR 2008 S.C. 23.
First Appeal No.1204 of 2003 519- We find merit in this submission. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharam Pal's case (Supra) that the prevailing Bank rate of interest was 7.5% P.A and the rate of interest should be awarded at that rate. Therefore, it is held that the rate of interest awarded by the Learned District Forum is excessive. It is reduced to 7.5% P.A.
20. In view of the discussions held above, this appeal is partly accepted. The refund of the amount charged in excess on MS basis instead on SP basis for the period from January, 2001 to September, 2001 is ordered to be given by the appellants to the respondent. The rate of interest is also reduced from 12% P.A. to 7.5 P.A. while the order qua the costs of Rs.500/- is upheld.
21. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.250/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 15.9.2003 This amount of Rs.250/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
22. The arguments in all these appeals were heard on 19.11.2009 and the orders were reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
23. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (LT. COL. DARSHAN SINGH-RETD.) MEMBER (PIARE LAL GARG) MEMBER November 27, 2009.
(Gurmeet Singh) First Appeal No.1204 of 2003 6