State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Pseb And Another vs Davinder Kaur And Another on 9 June, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1028 of 2006
Date of institution: 14.08.2006
Date of decision : 09.06.2011
1. Punjab State Electricity Board through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala.
2. Assistant Engineer, Civil Lines, Sub Division, Punjab State Electricity
Board, Jalandhar.
.....Appellants
Versus
1. Devinder Kaur wife of late Yash Pal Bhalla c/o M/s Vimpi Bar, G.T. Road,
Opposite Desh Bhagat Yadgar Hall, Jalandhar City.
2. Raminder Singh Bhalla son of late Yash Pal Singh Bhalla c/o M/s Vimpi
Bar, G.T. Road, Opposite Desh Bhagat Yadgar Hall, Jalandhar City.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 19.05.2006
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Jalandhar.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Mrs.Amarpreet Sharma, Member
Mr.Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member Present:-
For the appellants : Sh.J.S.Puri, Advocate
For the respondents : Sh.R.S.Bajaj, Advocate with
Sh.Parminder Singh, Advocate
JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT
VERSION OF THE RESPONDENTS
Yashpal Bhalla (now deceased) (in short "the applicant") husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2 had applied to the appellants for SP connection for running his factory of manufacturing/preservation of meat products and for marketing the same. All the formalities were completed. The electric connection bearing A/c No.CF32/0233 was granted to him.
2. It was further pleaded that the applicant was granted licence for manufacturing of meat products in the name of Vimpi Bar, Jalandhar of which the applicant was the proprietor and manager. Originally, it was granted in 'B' First Appeal No.1028 of 2006 2 category but it was changed later on to 'C' category. The applicant had applied to the Punjab Government for registration of his factory as small scale industry. It was registered on 7.5.1982 as such and the certificate was issued to the applicant on 1.3.2003. The Municipal Corporation had also granted the licence for manufacturing of these meat products.
3. It was further pleaded that the applicant was making the payment of electricity bills regularly. The officer of the appellants came to the premises of the applicant on 20.2.2004 and inspected the premises. The electric connection/meter was in order. The officer of the appellants asked respondent No.2 to sign the inspection report. Accordingly, respondent No.2 signed the same. The report was found to be totally wrong given with ulterior motive to harass the respondents. No rule/regulation was violated by the respondents. However, the appellants vide letter dated 24.2.2004 raised the demand of Rs.47,095/-. This demand was illegal. Hence, the complaint for challenging the demand of Rs.47,095/- raised vide letter dated 24.2.2004. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed. VERSION OF THE APPELLANTS
4. The appellants filed the written reply. It was admitted that the electric connection bearing A/c No.CF32/0233 was granted to the applicant. It was admitted that the electric connection was granted under the SP category for small power purposes.
5. It was admitted that the Executive Engineer, Enforcement - 1 of the appellants had inspected the electric connection of the respondents on 20.2.2004. It was found that the respondents were storing non-vegetarian items in defrezer and the appellants were to take action as per commercial supply (CS/Non residential supply NRS) tariff instead of small power (SP) tariff. Therefore, the demand of Rs.47,095/- was legal and valid. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
First Appeal No.1028 of 2006 3PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM
6. The respondents produced documents Ex.CW1 to Ex.CW15. Raminder Singh respondent filed his affidavit Ex.CW16 while copy of the complaint was filed as Ex.CW17. On the other hand, the appellants filed the affidavit of Engineer K.P.Sekhon, Senior Executive Engineer as Ex.OP1. The appellants also proved documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP4.
7. The learned District Forum accepted the complaint vide impugned judgment dated 19.5.2006. The demand of Rs.47,095/- was set aside and the respondents were also awarded compensation/costs amount of Rs.5000/-.
8. Hence, this appeal.
DISCUSSION
9. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the industrial connection fell under 3 categories namely small power (upto 20 KW), medium supply (upto 100 kw) and larger supply (above 100 KW). In the present case, the applicant had taken the electric connection under small power category for meat processing but the applicant/respondents were using the electric connection for storage/refrigeration by deep freezer in the shop for commercial purposes in the nature of restaurant. Use of this electric connection fell under the category of non residential supply (NRS) and per unit charges were higher under NRS category than the tariff under the small power connection. Hence, it was prayed that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 19.5.2006 be set aside.
10. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
11. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
12. Admittedly, the applicant had got the electric connection bearing A/c No.CF32/0233. He was manufacturing meat products for which he was granted licence on 7.5.1982 in the name and style of M/s Vimpi Bar, GT Road, Jalandhar. First Appeal No.1028 of 2006 4
13. It is also proved that the officers of the appellants had checked the electric meter of the respondents on 20.2.2004 and the checking report has been proved as Ex.OP2. It was mentioned specifically in the checking report that the consumer was using this electric connection only for non-vegetarian purposes and the items after manufacturing were being stored in the defrezer and the legal action under the Instructions was recommended.
14. The appellants have also filed the affidavit of Engineer K.P.S. Sekhon as OP1. He has deposed that the electric connection bearing A/c No.CF32/0233 was in the name of the applicant but it was being used by the respondents to store the non-vegetarian items in the defrezer.
15. It was also pleaded that the Executive Engineer (Enforcement - I) had inspected the electric connection of the respondent on 20.2.2004 and it was detected that after manufacturing non-vegetarian items, these were being stored in the defrezer. Therefore, the action was recommended under the instructions of the appellants.
16. It means, therefore, that the respondents had taken the electric connection for different purpose and it was being used for different purpose. It was granted under SP category while it was being used under NRS category. The tariff of NRS category was higher than the tariff under the SP category. Therefore, the account of the appellants was overhauled which was legal and valid.
17. In view of the discussions held above, this appeal is accepted and the impugned judgment dated 19.5.2006 is set aside.
18. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.2500/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 14.8.2006. This amount of Rs.2500/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be refunded by the registry to the appellants by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
19. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 7.6.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. First Appeal No.1028 of 2006 5
20. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (AMARPREET SHARMA) MEMBER (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER June 09, 2011.
Paritosh