State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Gurjit Industries, B-7, Focal ... vs Punjab State Electricity Board on 14 January, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
S.C.O. NO. 3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.37 of 2002
Date of institution : 27.6.2002
Date of decision : 14 .1.2011
1. M/s Gurjit Industries, B-7, Focal Point, Khanna, Tehsil Khanna, District
Ludhiana through its proprietor Shri Gurjit Singh.
2. Shri Gurjit Singh Proprietor of M/s Gurjit Industries, B-7, Focal Point,
Khanna, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana.
.......Complainants
Versus
1. Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary.
2. Superintending Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Khanna Circle,
Khanna, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana.
3. Senior Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Operation
Division, Khanna, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana.
4. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division City
No.1, Khanna, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana.
......Respondents
Consumer Complaint under Section 17 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal President.
Mrs. Amarpreet Sharma, Member.
Mr. B.S. Sekhon, Member.
Present :-
For the complainants : Shri Rishi Kaushal, Advocate. For the respondents : Shri Pavit Mattewal, Advocate. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
This order will dispose of two consumer complaints, namely, Consumer Complaint No.37 of 2002 (M/s Gurjit Industries and anr. vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others) and Consumer Complaint No.38 of 2002 (M/s Royal Consumer Complaint No.37 of 2002. 2 Industries and another vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others) as the questions of law and facts involved in both the complaints are identical. Facts are taken from Consumer Complaint No.37 of 2002 and the parties would be referred by their status in this complaint.
2. Both these complaints were accepted by this Commission vide order dated 2.12.2005 ex parte. The respondents had filed Revision Petition No.1210 of 2006 (Punjab State Electricity Board v. M/s Gurjeet Industries) and First Appeal No.273 of 2006 (Punjab State Electricity Board v. M/s Royal Industries) in the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi. The Revision Petition and the First Appeal were accepted by the Hon'ble National Commission vide order dated 27.10.2009 and the order passed by this Commission dated 2.12.2005 was set aside. The matter was remitted to this Commission for fresh decision after affording due opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
3. Hence these complaints are before us.
4. Gurjit Singh complainant No.2 is the proprietor of the firm M/s Gurjit Industries, B-7, Focal Point, Khanna complainant No.1 (in short "the complainant").
5. The complainant was running the business of manufacturing cattle feed in the premises bearing Unit No.B-7, Focal Point, Khanna with boundaries as under:-
East : Passage
West : Royal Industries B-6
North : Godown of M/s Gurjit Industries
South : Road
6. This plot was allotted to the complainant by the Punjab State Industries and Export Corporation Limited, Chandigarh vide allotment letter dated 26.2.1988. The complainant had got installed an electric connection bearing account No.MS90 on 28.10.1989 with the sanctioned load of 74.524 KW. It was later on got extended to 98.904 KW vide SJO No.10/23 dated 3.7.1991. The complainant was making the payment of electricity bills regularly. The electric connection Consumer Complaint No.37 of 2002. 3 was also being checked by the officers/officials of the respondents regularly. The complainant firm was registered by Director of Factories, Punjab and had sales tax No.45963416 dated 21.11.1988.
7. On the other hand plot No.B-6, Focal Point, Khanna was originally allotted to Karam Singh Gill by the Punjab State Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. vide allotment letter dated 4.9.1991. It was sold by Karam Singh Gill to Smt. Surinderpal Kaur and Paramjit Singh and Navpreet Singh. These partners were running the business in the name and style of M/s Royal Industries, B-6, Focal Point, Khanna. They had also got installed electric connection bearing account No.MS-157 on 1.2.1995. The boundaries of plot No.B-6, Focal Point, Khanna were as under:-
East : Gurjit Industries B-7
West : Passage
North : Godown of Royal Industries
South : Road
The Firm M/s Royal Industries had sales tax No.MS-46288519 dated 26.3.1993.
8. It was further pleaded that the respondents had debited an amount of Rs.68,136/- in the account of the complainant (Complaint No.37 of 2002) vide notice dated 9.11.1999. The complainant deposited one-third of the demanded amount i.e. Rs.22,712/- with the respondents on 9.11.1999 and challenged the demand notice dated 9.11.1999 before the Disputes Settlement Committee.
9. The premises of the complainants were checked by the Senior Executive Engineer (Technical), Khanna Circle on 9.11.1999 and he had given the report as under:-
"9.11.99 as per the instructions of the Superintending Engineer and on the request of the consumer ordered to inspect the site and on 9.11.1999, the site was checked. M/s Gurjit Industries having A/c No.M.S.90 is situated Consumer Complaint No.37 of 2002. 4 at Focal Point, Khanna and Gurjit Singh is the proprietor of the same. The second connection runs in the premises of M/s Royal Industries bearing a/c No.M.S. 157, situated at Focal Point, Khanna. As per the partnership deed of M/s Royal Industries, there are three partners. The owners are different. He also mentioned in the report that there is a partitioned wall between the two premises. Two main gates are existing, on the road side of both the firms. Offices of both the firms are independent. The raw material and the preparation of both the firms are different. He also mentioned that two gates independently proceed to the Godowns of Stateware House Corporation. He also mentioned that there is no joint relation between two firms and in the end he submitted that as per the site, both the connections are running separately in the separate unit and due to running of these connections, there is no violation of the Rules and Regulations of the P.S.E.B."
10. The complainant, however, received the demand notice dated 25.6.2002 from the respondents demanding an amount of Rs.6,81,502/- on the plea that both these electric connections bearing account No.MS-90 of the complainant in premises No.B-7 and the account No.MS-157 of M/s Royal Industries in plot No.B-6 are in the same premises and were liable to be clubbed together. This demand of Rs.6,81,502/- was illegal and was challenged by the complainant by filing the present complaint i.e. CC No.37 of 2002. It was also challenged by the firm M/s Royal Industries by filing the CC No.38 of 2002.
11. The respondents filed the written statement. The version of the respondents was that the electric connection bearing account No.MS-90 was in the name of Consumer Complaint No.37 of 2002. 5 Gurjit Singh (CC No.37 of 2002) while the electric connection bearing account No. MS-157 was in the name of Smt. Surinderpal Kaur wife of Gurjit Singh. Smt.Surinderpal Kaur had applied for electric connection earlier but it was objected to by the SDO, City-I Khanna vide his letter dated 1.6.1993 being in the same premises. Thereafter the partition wall was constructed between the two premises i.e. B-6 and B-7 and thereafter the electric connection was released to her on 13.12.1993. The said connection was later on transferred in the name of M/s Royal Industries vide SJO dated 1.2.1995 effected on 20.2.1995.
12. It was further pleaded by the respondents that the partition wall marked the distinction between premises B-6 and B-7 for which two separate electric connections were issued. However the partition wall was demolished by the complainant and notice was given to the complainant by the SDO vide memo dated 26.8.1997 and he was asked to get both the electric connections clubbed together. Again Sita Ram, Junior Engineer had checked the premises and had reported vide his report dated 23.10.1997 that both these electric connections were in the same premises. Notice was again given to the complainants on 3.11.1997 and they were asked to get the two electric connections clubbed together. However the complainants had failed to do so.
13. It was further pleaded that the premises of the complainant were again checked by the Additional Superintending Engineer-II, Enforcement, Jalandhar on 4.11.1999 and he had reported that both these electric connections were required to be clubbed together. He had also reported that there was godown on the northern side of both these premises and the said godown had opening in both the premises and the said godown was given on rent by the consumers to the Central Warehousing Corporation. The electric connection to the warehouse godown was common from both the accounts i.e. MS-90 and MS-157. The Additional Superintending Engineer (Enforcement-II), Jalandhar vide his report dated 5.11.1999 had also reported that both these premises were joint and inseparable. The operative part of his report was as under:-
Consumer Complaint No.37 of 2002. 6
"2. The consumer is also using electricity for godown of Central Warehousing Corporation by installing sub meter, which is joint on the backside of plot No.6 and 7 and in plot No.6 a separate connection MS-157 is also installed which is running in the name of M/s Royal Industry. The passages of godown opens towards both the plots. In this way the court yard (ahatas) are joint."
The electric connection bearing account No.MS-157 was disconnected permanently vide PDCO No.62/09384 dated 4.8.2000.
14. It was further pleaded that initially a notice/bill of Rs.68,136/- was issued to the complainant on 9.11.1999. The complainant had taken up the matter with the District Disputes Settlement Committee after depositing one-third of the amount of Rs.68,136/-. The Circle Disputes Settlement Committee formed a Clubbing Committee in the case of M/s Gurjit Industries account No. MS-90 and M/s Royal Industries account No.MS-157, Focal Point, Khanna. The Circle Disputes Settlement Committee had held meeting in the chamber of Superintending Engineer (Operation), Circle, Khanna on 16.8.2000 (Ex.R3) and had opined as under:-
"The consumer or any of its representative was not come present. One letter from the Prop. of the firm M/s Gurjit Industry, Focal Point, Khanna was received in the committee in which he has requested for pending the case. The case was considered and it was decided that Additional S.E. Operation Division, Khanna be produced this case for clubbing the different two connections MS-90 and MS-157 to Case Committee (Director Flying Squad), Ludhiana as well as to Superintending Engineer, Khanna. The case be re- Consumer Complaint No.37 of 2002. 7 submitted to Dispute Settlement Committee after deciding the same."
15. It was held by the said Settlement Committee that the complainants were liable to pay the dues. The Settlement Committee had also held its meeting on 5.3.2002 (Ex.R4) in which it was observed as under:-
"Sh. Gurjit Singh attended the meeting and he was heard properly. He stated that he has got disconnected the electric connection of Royal Industry. The committee after gave the decision after thorough discussion that the amount as credited in the account of the consumer is correct and is recoverable from the consumer. The committee also decided that the LS Tariff may be recovered from the consumer till the date of disconnection of the account."
16. The Clubbing Committee visited the premises of the complainants and vide its report dated 6.3.2002 held that the two electric connections were in the same premises. After perusing the report of the Clubbing Committee, the Disputes Settlement Committee dismissed the complaint filed by the complainants on 21.3.2002.
17. It was further pleaded that the circular No.78/95 and 4/97 deal with the clubbing of electric meters installed in the same premises were considered. Account of the complainants were overhauled and the arrears for the period from January 1996 to July 2000 to the tune of Rs.6,81,502/- were demanded from the complainant vide notice/bill dated 25.6.2002. This demand was made in accordance with the findings of the respondents and of the Settlement Committee regarding the clubbing of charges which had become final. Therefore the demand of Rs.6,81,502/- was legal and valid. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed. Consumer Complaint No.37 of 2002. 8
18. The complainants filed the affidavits/documents in support of their versions. Similarly the respondents also filed the affidavits/documents in support of their version.
19. The complainants have also filed the replication.
20. The submission of the learned counsel for the complainants was that the electric connection bearing account No.MS-90 was installed in Plot No.B-7 while electric connection bearing account No.MS-157 was installed in Plot No.B-6. These plots were separate from each other. The owners of both these plots were different and the owners of both these plots were running separate business having separate registration number/sales tax numbers. Therefore these electric connections installed in separate premises are not liable to be clubbed together and the demand made by the respondents was illegal. Written arguments were also filed.
21. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents was that both these premises were one property which was separated by the partition wall but the partition wall was also demolished by the complainant later on. There was one godown on the northern side of both the properties. It had its opening in both the properties. It was drawing electric energy from electric meter bearing account No.M.S.90 by installing the sub-meter. The owners of plot No.B-6 were the wife and sons of the owner of plot No.B-7 and, therefore, they were the same family. Both these electric connection were in the same premises. It was also submitted that the complainants had already taken up the matter with the Disputes Settlement Committee which had rejected the complaint of the consumers. Therefore they have no right to file the complaint in the State Commission. Hence it was prayed that there was no merit in any of the complaints and both these complaints be dismissed.
22. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
23. No doubt, Gurjit Singh proprietor of M/s Gurjit Industries (complainants in CC No.37 of 2002) is the husband of Surinderpal Kaur and father of Paramjit Consumer Complaint No.37 of 2002. 9 Singh and Navpreet Singh who are co-sharers in M/s Royal Industries (complainants in CC No.38 of 2002). However the complainants have not admitted this fact at any place. Rather they have tried to plead and reveal that they are separate entities having no connection with each other. The complainants in both these complaints should not have felt shy of admitting that they are related to each other. Rather they are one family. The relationship is clearly discernible from the fact that in the letter of allotment Ex.C-1 Gurjit Singh is shown to be the resident of Village Khattar. Similarly the complainants in CC No.38 of 2002 have placed on the file partnership deed as Ex.C-2 according to which Surinderpal Kaur is the wife of Gurjit Singh resident of Village Khattar whereas Paramjit Singh and Navpreet Singh are the sons of Gurjit Singh, residents of village Khattar. From all these facts and circumstances it is clearly proved that Gurjit Singh complainant in CC No.37 of 2002 is the husband of Surinderpal Kaur partner in the firm M/s Royal Industries while Paramjit Singh partner in the Royal Industries is the son of Gurjit Singh complainant in CC No.37 of 2002. Similarly Navpreet Singh partner in M/s Royal Industries is the son of Gurjit Singh complainant in CC No.37 of 2002. Therefore it is clearly proved that the complainants in both the complaints are one family.
24. So far as the premises are concerned, the complainants in complaint No.CC No.37 of 2002 are the owners of plot No.B-7, Focal Point, Khanna. This plot was allotted to the complainant by the Punjab State Industries and Export Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh vide allotment letter dated 26.2.1988 Ex.C-1. Therefore plot No.B-7 is a separate plot in which the complainant is running the business of cattle feed. The complainant firm is duly registered with the Director of Factories and copy of the registration certificate is proved as Ex.C-4. The complainant has got separate electric connection bearing account No.MS-90 in plot No.B-7 with the sanctioned load of 74.524 KW which was got extended to 98.40 KW vide SJO dated 3.7.1991. The map of this plot is proved as Ex.C-17. The complainant firm has also got a certificate for Final/PMT registration issued by the Director of Consumer Complaint No.37 of 2002. 10 Industries Ex.C-5. The complainants filed separate sales tax return, copy of which has been proved as Ex.C-6.
25. On the other hand, plot No.B-6 was originally allotted to Karam Singh Gill by the Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Limited, Chandigarh vide allotment letter dated 4.9.1991. It was sold by Karam Singh Gill in favour of M/s Royal Industries and the ownership was transferred in favour of M/s Royal Industries by the Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation, Chandigarh vide their letter dated 4.9.1991 Ex.C-1. The complainants in CC No.38 of 2002 had started the work of preparing washing soap, chemicals and cattle feed etc. The partnership deed of M/s Royal Industries has been proved as Ex.C-2 in both the complaints. M/s Royal Industries were filing separate sales tax return copy of which is proved as Ex.C-3. In CC No.37 of 2002 the certificate of registration issued by the Central Sales Tax authorities is proved as Ex.C-4. In CC No.38 of 2002 the certificate of registration issued by the Director of Industries, Punjab, Chandigarh in favour of M/s Royal Industries is proved as Ex.C-5. Therefore the firm M/s Gurjit Industries is installed in plot No.B-7 while the firm M/s Royal Industries is working in Plot No.B-6. Both these plots, namely, B-6 and B-7 are separate plots and cannot be called to be the same premises. It may be that both these plots are owned by one family but that does not make the plots to be one plot. Plot No.B-7 was originally allotted to M/s Gurjit Industries while Plot No.B-6 was allotted separately to Karam Singh Gill. Both these firms are running separate business and they have separate registration numbers. They file sales tax returns separately. So both these plots cannot be called to be the same plot.
26. Moreover it was inspected by the Senior Executive Engineer on 9.11.1999 and he had submitted his report copy of which is proved as Ex.C-3. It has already been reproduced in the upper part of this judgment. M/s Royal Industries has separate electric connection bearing account No.MS-157. As per this report, there Consumer Complaint No.37 of 2002. 11 is a wall in between both these plots No.B6 and B7 and, therefore, both these plots are separate from each other.
27. The version of the respondents was that earlier Smt. Surinderpal Kaur partner in M/s Royal Industries (CC No.38 of 2002) had applied for electric connection but it was declined to her on 1.6.1993. Then she had constructed a wall in between Plot No.B-6 and Plot No.B-7 and thereafter the electric connection was released to M/s Royal Industries in Plot No.B-6 on 13.12.1993. It was transferred in favour of M/s Royal Industries (CC No.38 of 2002). It was further pleaded by the respondents that the notice was given to the complainants on 26.8.1997. Again the premises were inspected by Sita Ram, Junior Engineer on 23.10.1997 and a notice was also issued to the consumers of both these electric connections on 3.11.1997 and they were required to club both these electric connections.
28. Learned counsel for the respondents drew our attention to the order passed by the Clubbing Committee on 5.4.2002 in which all these facts have been referred.
29. First of all, no application has been placed on the file to show if Surinderpal Kaur had applied for electric connection or if it was declined on 1.6.1993 or if it was released to her on 13.12.1993 after she had constructed the dividing wall or thereafter it was transferred in favour of M/s Royal Industries on 20.2.1995 or if Sita Ram had reported on 23.10.1997 that both these electric connections were in the same premises or if the notice was issued to Gurjit Singh complainant on 3.11.1997 asking for clubbing of both these electric connections. Even if all these facts had taken place, we fail to understand how these two separate properties can be treated as one property when these were separately allotted by the Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation, Chandigarh to different persons. It may be that both these plots are owned by one family or even if they are running the allied industries in both these plots but by no imagination these two separate plots can be called to be one unit.
Consumer Complaint No.37 of 2002. 12
30. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents was that on 4.11.1999 these premises were checked by the Additional Superintending Engineer-II, Jalandhar and he had found that there was one godown which was rented out to Central Warehousing Corporation by installing sub-meter and it was on the backside of both plots No.B-6 and B-7. The godown had the opening on both these plots which were depicted in the report dated 4.11.1999. Hence it was submitted that both these accounts No.MS-90 and MS-157 existed in one property.
31. This submission has been considered.
32. It may be that there was a godown in a part of plot No.B-6 on the northern side and also on the backside of Plot No.B-7 or that the godown had the opening towards both these plots and godown was common on the backside of both these plots. It may also be that the electricity was being supplied to the godown from an electric connection No.MS-90 by installing a sub-meter to the godown. If it was so the complainant in CC No.37 of 2002 may be liable under any other provision but the existence of a godown common on the back of both these plots, does not make these two properties one premises when one property bears Plot No. B-6 and the other property bears plot No.B-7. These are two separate properties and not one and, therefore, the owner of each plot is entitled to a separate electric meter and clubbing of both the electric meters installed in two properties cannot be justified by any rule or regulation. Regulation 167 reads as under:-
"167. RUNNING OF MORE THAN ONE CONNECTION IN THE SAME PREMISES Some consumers take moiré than one connections in the same premises, in the same or different names resulting into loss by way of application of wrong schedule of tariffs. Similarly, there are consumers who manage to get connection in the defaulting premises tactfully in the name of a near relative or a partner of the firm so as to get rid of the outstanding amount against them/such consumer. Consumer Complaint No.37 of 2002. 13 Release of a new connection or more than one connection in the same premises should be regulated as under : -
167.1 to 167.2..........
167.2.1 to 167.2.2.......
167.3........................
167.4. If more than one industrial connection is running in the same premises in different names and work is carried out by one concern/proprietor, such consumers should be prevailed upon to get the loads clubbed after getting it changed in one name. In case they do not agree, their request for any extension, splitting or transfer of existing load shall not be accommodated."
33. The reading of this Regulation does not mandate that even if two properties have separate number, these constitute one premises. Therefore, plots No.B-6 and B-7 are separate plots and cannot be called to be one premises particularly when plot No.B-6 has a separate opening on the road and plot No.B-7 has a separate opening on the road.
34. Next submission of the learned counsel for the respondents was that since the complainant had filed a complaint before the Disputes Settlement Committee and the Disputes Settlement Committee had dismissed the complaint, therefore, the complainant has no right to file the complaint in the State Consumer Commission. Our attention was invited to proceedings of the Circle Disputes Settlement Committee held in the chamber of S.E. Operation, Circle Khanna on 16.8.2000 (Ex.R-3) reproduced in para 14.
35. It was also submitted that the Disputes Settlement Committee had further held the meeting on 5.3.2002 (Ex.R-4) reproduced in para 15.
36. The matter was also considered by the Clubbing Committee dated 6.3.2002. A copy of these proceedings were sent by the S.E. (OP), Khanna to Senior XEN (OP), Khanna vide letter dated 25.3.2002 (Ex.R5). The operative part reads as under:-
Consumer Complaint No.37 of 2002. 14
"5. Connections of the consumer were checked by Addl. S.E.-2, Enforcement, Jalandhar on dated 4.11.99 and reported that both the connections are required to be clubbed and godown on rent with Central Warehousing Corporation is common to both the accounts MS-90 and MS-157. Even during the visit of the Clubbing Committee, the portion from- where partition wall was demolished is visible and the Central Warehousing Corp. Godown was verified to be common to both the connections.
6. Evidently, the consumer has been evading LS tariff, installation of his own T/F & peak load restrictions from the date of release of second connection to the date of permanent disconnection of the second connection. The requisite charges such as difference of tariff, & 20% LT surcharge is recoverable from the consumer from 1.1.1996 to 4.8.2000."
37. It may be noticed that the complainants had filed a complaint before the Disputes Settlement Committee only when the respondents had raised the demand of Rs.68,336/- after depositing Rs.22,712/- one-third of the demanded amount. The complainants had not filed any complaint before the Disputes Settlement Committee against the demand of Rs.6,81,502/- raised by the respondents vide demand notice/bill dated 25.6.2002. Therefore, complaints No.37 of 2002 and No.38 of 2002 are maintainable.
38. Since the complainants in CC No.37 of 2002 are running their business in industrial plot No.B-7 and the complainants in CC No.38 of 2002 are running their business in industrial plot No.B-6, therefore, these are two separate properties and both the complainants are entitled to separate electric connections in each property.
Consumer Complaint No.37 of 2002. 15
39. Keeping in view the discussion held above, both these complaints i.e. CC No.37 of 2002 and CC No.38 of 2002 are accepted and the demand of Rs.6,81,502/- is set aside.
40. The arguments in both these complaints were heard on 5.1.2011 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
(MRS. AMARPREET SHARMA)
MEMBER
January 14 , 2011 (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)
Bansal MEMBER