State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Punjab State Electricity Board, vs Kewal Singh on 26 October, 2012
1
First Appeal No. 29 of 2008
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB,
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 29 of 2008
Date of institution :09.01.2008
Date of Decision : 26.10.2012
The Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division Dinanagar, Tehsil
and District Gurdaspur through its SDO.
....Appellant/OP
Versus
Kewal Singh son of Sh. Surti Ram, resident of Village Kunde
Firozepur, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur.
...Respondent/complainant
First Appeal against the order
dated 21.11.2007 of the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Gurdaspur.
Before:-
Sardar Jagroop Singh Mahal,
Presiding Judicial Member.
Sardar Jasbir Singh Gill, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : None
For the respondent : Sh. R.K.Arya, Advocate
JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This is OPs appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 21.11.2007 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which the complaint was allowed and the OPs were directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation on account of their loss of livelihood besides Rs.5,000/- 2 First Appeal No. 29 of 2008
against OP for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.500/- as costs of litigation.
2. Kewal Singh-respondent was consumer of electricity vide account no. GP-79/1489 and was running Saw mill, Atta Chakki, Hullar and Randa Machine at G.T.Road, Nawala Puli Sarmo Lahri. He had been paying the bills regularly. The working was being done by him for earning his livelihood of the family and had not employed any other person for this purpose. The OP/appellant however, dis-connected the electric supply to his shop on 25.05.2006 illegally and without any notice. He requested for re-connection of the supply but they did not, due to which he remained un-employed. When enquired, the OP told that there were orders passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to close certain Saw mills but the said orders did not apply to the complainant. They also continued sending the bills to the complainant and this was the deficiency in service on their part. The complainant therefore, filed the present complaint to restrain the OPs from recovering the amount of Rs.3960/- from the complainant and to restore his electric connection which is the only source of his income. He also prayed for Rs.30,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation.
3. The case of the OP is that the electric connection was dis- connected as per the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India closing Saw mills and that the complainant were using the connection for commercial purpose and therefore, does not fall under the definition of the consumer because he had employed two servants for this purpose. It was denied if the bill for Rs. 3960/- was wrongly 3 First Appeal No. 29 of 2008 issued and if the complainant is entitled to restoration of electric connection and compensation.
4. Both the parties were given opportunity to produce evidence in support of their contentions.
5. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the Learned District Forum allowed the complaint as mentioned in para no.1 above vide impugned order dated 21.11.2007. The OP/appellant has challenged the same through this appeal.
6. The appeal was filed in the year, 2008 and Counsel for the appellant last appeared on 26.03.2012. The case was adjourned since then to 23.07.2012, 10.10.2012 and 22.10.2012 but none appeared for the appellant. Since the appeal was pending since, 2008 it could not be kept pending for an indefinite period as the appellant is not taking any interest in pursuing the same. We have, therefore, heard the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the respondent and have perused the record.
7. The complainant has referred to Ex.R-3 a letter issued by Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur to all the SDMs in the District intimating that no Saw mill set up after 30.10.2002 is to be allowed to operate in view of orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The District Magistrate, Gurdaspur wrote another letter Ex.R-2 asking the SSP, Gurdaspur/Batala for Police help to close 35 units of Saw Mills operating in District Gurdaspur. Thereafter, the Forest Department wrote a letter Ex.C-10 to Deputy Commissioner Gurdaspur intimating the Saw mills of Gurdaspur including the Saw mill of complainant set- 4 First Appeal No. 29 of 2008 up before 29.10.2002 and therefore, it could not be closed and should have been allowed to operate. In this manner, as per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India it appears the Saw Mills established on or after 30.10.2002 were to be closed but the OPs have dis- connected the electric supply and closed the Saw mills of the complainant which had come into functioning prior to 29.10.2006 and could not be closed. The learned District Forum therefore, rightly directed the OPs to restore the electric connection of the Saw mill of the complainant.
8. The case of the complainant is that since the dis- connection on 25.05.2006, his Saw Mill was lying closed till he filed the present complaint on 31.10.2006. The OPs did not restore the electric connection till the present complaint was decided on 21.11.2007. The learned District Forum took notice of the fact that the complainant has suffered the loss of his livelihood on account of illegal dis-connection of not only Saw mills but also Atta Chakki and Randa Machine and granted him a compensation of Rs.30,000/-. In our opinion the grant of compensation is just and proper and no reduction therein is possible.
9. In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the learned District Forum rightly allowed the complaint. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
10. In order to safe guard the interest of appellant they are free to recover the amount of compensation and cost from the officials who dis-connected the electric supply in contravention of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and pushed the parties into this 5 First Appeal No. 29 of 2008 avoidable litigation of course after serving a notice on him/them to show cause why the said amount be not recovered.
11. Amount of Rs.17,750/- was deposited by the appellant on 09.01.2008. The respondent/complainant would be entitled to withdraw the said amount with interest accrued, thereon. The amount be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant by way of crossed cheque or demand draft after the expiry of the period of revision, if no stay order is received from the Hon'ble National Commission.
Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs.
(Jagroop Singh Mahal) Presiding Judicial Member (Jasbir Singh Gill) Member 26th October, 2012 Rashmi