State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Puran Singh vs Punjab State Electricity Board, ... on 31 August, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37A, CHANDIGARH
2nd Bench
FIRST APPEAL NO. 8 OF 2007
Date of Institution: 2.1.2007
Date of Decision: 31.8.2012
Puran Singh s/o S. Sajjan Singh r/o G.T. Road, Malout, Tehsil Malout,
District Muktsar.
.....Appellant
VERSUS
Punjab State Electricity Board, through its:-
1. Chairman, The Mall, Patiala.
2. Senior Executive Engineer, Operation Division, Malout, Tehsil
Malout, District Muktsar.
3. Assistant Executive Engineer (Operation), Sub-Urban Sub-Division,
Malout, Tehsil Malout, District Muktsar.
.....Respondents
First Appeal under Section 15 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986
against the order dated 30.11.2006
passed by the District Consumer
Redressal Forum, Muktsar.
Before:
Sh. Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member
Sh. B.S. Sekhon, Member Present:
For the appellant : Sh. B.S. Kanwar, Advocate for
Sh. Vivek Chauhan, Advocate
For the respondent : None
BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER
This is an appeal against the order dated 30.11.2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar (hereinafter called as "District Forum") vide which the complaint of the appellant-complainant (hereinafter called as "appellant") was dismissed. First Appeal No. 8 of 2007 Page 2 of 7
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Puran Singh s/o Sajjan Singh R/o G.T. Road, Malout, Tehsil Malout, District Muktsar, appellant had a small power electricity connection bearing No. SP 52/84, for manufacturing of new agricultural implements.
3. It was pleaded that the appellant had a very small unit for earning his livelihood and he had no other source of income. He had been paying the bills regularly and nothing was due on account of electricity consumed. It was pleaded that the appellant received a notice vide memo No. nil dated nil from the respondent No. 3 vide which the appellant was asked to get his electric connection clubbed with electric connection bearing account No. MS 34/20 released in the name of Anokh Singh and to deposit Rs. 1,750/- as permission fee for generator set. The said notice of the respondents was arbitrary and against the rules and regulations of the respondent Board especially against the spirit of commercial circular No. 54/2001. It was pleaded that the connection was neither checked by flying squad nor by any other officials of the respondents in the presence of the appellant nor any checking report was ever got signed from the appellant. The appellant had only one connection bearing account No. SP 52/84 and the other connection i.e. MS 34/20 was in the name of Anokh Singh with which the appellant had no concern.
4. It was further pleaded that both the electric connections were not installed in the same premises. The unit of the appellant is on the G.T. Road side whereas the unit of the Anokh Singh is situated on the Dera Radha Swami Road and a small patch for pedestrian path passes between the two units and, therefore, these connections were not installed in the same premises. Moreover, both the connections are fed from two different transformers. The appellant had taken the plot where his connection is First Appeal No. 8 of 2007 Page 3 of 7 installed, on lease and is to be returned back to the owner after the expiry of the lease. As per commercial circular No. 54/2001 more than one connection can run in the same premises. Moreover separate account is maintained by the appellant and Sh. Anokh Singh because the appellant had no concern with the second connection. It was also pleaded that the appellant had already deposited Rs. 2,000/- vide receipt No. 3010 dated 14.6.2000 regarding the permission of the generator set. The respondents have illegally and arbitrarily asked the appellant to club his connection with account No. MS 34/20. This act and conduct of the respondent caused great mental tension and unnecessary harassment. Alleging deficiency in service, the appellant filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking directions that the respondents be restrained from clubbing electricity connection bearing account No. SP 52/84 and MS 34/20. A compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental tension and Rs. 20,000/- on account of litigation charges was prayed.
5. Upon notice, the respondents filed a written statement in which preliminary objection was taken that the appellant was not a consumer within the definition of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was pleaded that the appellant was running a partnership firm for running the workshop in which the electricity connection bearing No. SP 52/84 and MS 34/20 had been installed and both the connections are being used for manufacturing agricultural implements on a large scale and are using both these electricity connections for commercial purposes. On merit, it was pleaded that the electric connection, which has been shown in the site plan is situated on the G.T. Road and Dera Radha Swami Road, belong to this partnership firm being run by the appellant alongwith other partners and both these connections were located in the same premises.
First Appeal No. 8 of 2007 Page 4 of 7
6. It was further pleaded that both these connections i.e. SP 52/84 and MS 34/20 were inspected by Enforcement Wing, Bathinda of the respondents on 7.1.2003 in the presence of Sh. Surjit Singh, partner of the firm, run by the appellant. It was found during the inspection that a 35 KVA generator had been installed and both these connections are being fed from the same generator. The inspection report was prepared on the site and Sh. Surjit Singh, partner of the firm, signed on the inspection report after reading, understanding and admitting the correctness of the same and one copy of the inspection report dated 7.1.2003 was supplied to Sh. Surjit Singh. It was also stated that there is no wall between these two connections for a length of 36 feet. On the basis of this inspection report, a notice dated 16.1.2003 was issued in accordance with the rules and regulations of the respondent Board. The demand of Rs. 1,750/- for permission fee for the generator was inadvertently included in the notice which had already been withdrawn in view of the deposit of the amount of Rs. 2,000/- as permission fee for generator. It was stated that the electric connection bearing No. SP 52/84 was running in the name of the appellant with sanctioned load of 19.39 KVA and the second connection i.e. MS 34/20 is running in the name of Anokh Singh with a sanctioned load of 43.59 KVA. Both these connections are running in the single premises, which is located on the G.T. Road as well as Dera Radha Swami Road and there is no wall separating the two connections for a length of 36 feet. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
7. The parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
8. The learned District Forum, after going through the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record, dismissed the complaint of the appellant.
9. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has come up in appeal. First Appeal No. 8 of 2007 Page 5 of 7
10. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that two premises where the electric connections bearing No. SP 52/84 and MS 34/20 are installed/located in two different premises and only electric connection No. SP 52/84 is running in the name of the appellant and he has nothing to do with the other connection existing in the name of Sh. Anokh Singh and thus both the connections cannot be clubbed together.
11. We have gone through the pleadings of the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the evidence on record.
12. The appellant has contended that his connection bearing No. SP 52/84 is running in a separate premises and he has nothing to do with the electric connection bearing No. MS 34/20 which is running in the name of Sh. Anokh Singh because one of the premises situated at G.T. Road whereas the other is located on the Dera Radha Swami Road and supply to these connections is being given from two different transformers and there is nothing common between the two plots. The appellant has proved on record a representation addressed jointly by Sh. Puran Singh and Sh. Anokh Singh to Superintending Engineer, Distribution Circular, Muktsar (Ex. C-
3), in which it has been requested that their connections should not be clubbed together. Similarly he has placed on record a site plan showing the locations of the premises where the two electric connections are located/installed. But the respondents have proved on record the inspection report dated 7.1.2003 prepared by Additional Superintending Engineer, Enforcement-I, Bathinda as Ex. C-11/OP-2. The perusal of these documents shows that inspection of both these connections i.e. SP 52/84 and MS 34/20 was carried out simultaneously and a detailed report has been prepared at site in which it has been pointed out that the load of both these electric connections is intermixed and both the connections are First Appeal No. 8 of 2007 Page 6 of 7 installed in the same premises. It has also been stated that one generator set of 35 KVA is installed which is feeding both these connections. This inspection has been done in the presence of one Sh. Surjit Singh, who has been shown as the partner of the firm. Even though the appellant has stated that the connection was not checked in his presence but he has not denied that he has nothing to do with Sh. Surjit Singh nor the appellant has specified his relation with Sh. Anokh Singh in whose name the connection No. MS 34/20 is running. The appellant placed on record the notice dated 16.1.2003 which has been addressed jointly to Sh. Anokh Singh s/o Sh. Sajjan Singh and Sh. Puran Singh s/o Sh. Sajjan Singh (appellant) in which both were directed to club these connections. From this notice also it is clear that Anokh Singh and Puran Singh, appellant, are real brothers. This fact has been denied by the appellant. The appellant has also further proved on record an affidavit by Sh. Surjit Singh S/o Sh. Sajjan Singh, Director, M/s Delux Agricultural Implements Limited (Ex. OP-8), in which he has deposed that the account No. SP 89 and SP 84 are running in the name of Sh. Anokh Singh and Sh. Puran Singh and it has also been deposed that they are willing to club these connections and also willing to pay MS tariff on the combined consumption of both these connections. This affidavit not only establishes that Surjit Singh, Puran Singh and Anokh Singh are real brothers but also shows that they are partners in the firm Delux Agricultural Implements Pvt. Ltd. and that both these electric connections are running in the same premises.
13. In view of the above findings we are of the firm view that both the connections are running in the same premises and are required to be clubbed on the basis of the inspection report dated 7.1.2003 as per the provisions of the commercial circular No. 54/2001 and the respondents First Appeal No. 8 of 2007 Page 7 of 7 were within their rights to ask the appellant to club both these connections. Since the amount of Rs. 1,750/- demanded for sanctioning of the generator is withdrawn, the remaining dispute regarding the clubbing both connections is settled in favour of the respondents.
14. Accordingly, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. The impugned order of the learned District Forum is upheld.
15. The arguments were held on 30.8.2012 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
16. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of the cases.
(INDERJIT KAUSHIK) PRESIDING MEMBER (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER August 31, 2012 VINAY