State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shivraj Singh vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. on 12 December, 2015
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 984 of 2015
Date of institution: 28.8.2015
Date of Decision: 12.12.2015
Shivraj Singh son of Major Singh, resident of Village Kotra Korian Wala,
District Bathinda.
Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through
its Secretary.
2. S.D.O./A.E.E., Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, City Sub
Division Rampura, District Bathinda.
Respondents/Ops
First Appeal against the order dated 15.7.2015
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bathinda.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. A.S. Mann, Advocate
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
ORDER
The appellant/complainant(hereinafter referred as complainant) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 15.7.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal First Appeal No. 984 of 2015 2 Forum, Bathinda(hereinafter referred as the District Forum) in consumer complaint No. 550 dated 2.9.2014 vide which the complaint filed by complainant was dismissed.
2. Complaint was filed by complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') against the respondents/OPs(hereinafter referred as Ops) on the averments that he is consumer of Ops having connection bearing A/c No. B61SP920028X. It is tubewell connection and was being used for agricultural work since its release. As per the policy of the Powercom, AP bills were declared as free as per CC No. 26/98 and tubewell connections, which were released from Industrial quota were exempted from charges. Again CC No. 10/2006 was issued about free electricity to the farmers. Ops started sending bills, which were against their own circulars, therefore, illegal, null and void. As per circulars referred above, complainant was entitled for free supply of electricity even as per Sales Regulations 85.03.01.02, complainant was exempted to pay the electricity charges. There are other connections similar to complainant Pritam Singh s/o Maghar Singh r/o Phul A/c No. SP 6, Jagdev Singh s/o Uttam Singh, R/o Phul A/c No. SP 26, Jaspal Singh S/o Mukand Singh, R/o Phul etc. and they were exempted from charges whereas complainant was getting bills. The issuance of the impugned bill amounted to unnecessary demand by the Op, which amounted to deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Repeated demand of the bills have caused mental tension, harassment and botheration to complainant. Hence, the complaint with a direction to dispense with the electricity bills, pay Rs. 80,000/- First Appeal No. 984 of 2015 3 as compensation, Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the complaint or any other additional/alternative relief.
3. The complaint was contested by the Ops, who filed their written version taking legal objections that the complaint was not maintainable in this form as complainant had no locus-standi or cause of action to file the complaint. complainant had not come to this Forum with clean hands and had intentionally suppressed the material facts. The alleged circulars mentioned in the complaint were not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case in hand rather as per Circular No. 71/2003 only those AP connections were to be considered for free supply, which were running for agricultural purposes only. However, complainant had applied the connection for SP category for fish farming, which was commercial purpose and from the inception of the release of the connection, complainant was using this electricity connection for commercial purposes, therefore, he was not entitled to get free electricity. Even as per Circular No. 10/06 agriculture tubewell released under SP category, tubewell connections released to farmers of Kandi Area, PAU Ludhiana, PSTC/IB lift irrigation, other connections released under SP/MS category and other TCA were entitled to free supply and according to the aforesaid circulars, complainant was not entitled to free supply. This point was settled by the Hon'ble State Commission in First Appeal No. 1485 of 2006 "Lakhveer Singh & Others versus PSEB and another" on 5.3.2007 and similar other matters. Since complainant was claiming free supply of electricity, therefore, the Forum had got no jurisdiction to try First Appeal No. 984 of 2015 4 and entertain the complaint; complainant was not a consumer as defined under the Act and that the present complaint was false, frivolous and vexatious as the same deserved to be dismissed with special costs of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 26 of the Act. On merits, the averments taken in the legal objections were reiterated. It was again reiterated that the connection taken by complainant was not being used for agricultural purpose but for commercial purposes i.e. for fish farming. The circulars to which the reference has been made in the complaint, complainant was not entitled to free electricity supply under those circulars. The complaint was without any merit and it be dismissed.
4. The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.
5. In support of his allegations, complainant had tendered into evidence affidavits of Shivraj Singh Exs. C-1 & 4, Bills Exs. C- 2&3, letters Exs. C-5 & C-6, Circular Ex. C-7. On the other hand, Ops had tendered into evidence affidavit of Sukhpal Singh Ex. Op-1/1, SCO copy Ex. Op-1/2, installation order Ex. Op-1/3, A&A form and demand notice Exs. Op-1/4 & 5, test report Ex. Op-1/6 to 8, payment receipt Ex. Op-1/9, challan Ex. Op-1/10, A&A form and demand notice Exs. Op-1/11&12, certificate Ex. Op-1/13, affidavit of Shivraj Singh Ex. Op-1/14.
6. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written version filed by Ops, evidence and documents brought on the record, the complaint was dismissed.
First Appeal No. 984 of 2015 5
7. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
9. It has been argued by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant/complainant had taken tubewell connection vide A/c No. B61SP920028X and as per Circular No. 26/98 and 10/2006, complainant was entitled to free electricity supply to his tubewell. Although the District Forum has referred to these circulars but these were not properly interpreted. It was wrongly observed by the District Forum that the tubewell connection taken by complainant was not being used for agricultural purposes, therefore, the order passed by the District Forum is liable to be set-aside and the complaint is liable to be accepted.
10. Apart from these facts, Ops in their written statement have taken the legal objection that complainant was not a consumer as defined under the Act as the connection of the complainant is under SP category i.e. fish farming, which is commercial in nature. The learned District Forum has given the findings that under the circulars referred by complainant, complainant is not entitled to free electricity supply but no findings were recorded whether complainant is a consumer as per the definition under the Act. The complaint is silent whether the said connection was taken by complainant to earn his livelihood for his self employment. As per Section 2(1)(d)(ii), in case any service has been taken for commercial purpose and there are no averments in the complaint that the connection was taken to earn his livelihood for self employment then such commercial activity First Appeal No. 984 of 2015 6 does not come within the domain of the consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. The counsel for the appellant was unable to rebut this preposition.
11. Now whether complainant was entitled to free electricity as per the Circulars mentioned by him in the complaint. He has mentioned Circular No. 26/98 and Circular No. 10/2006 under which he is entitled to free electricity supply. The crux of those circulars have been referred by the District Forum in its order. For the purpose of convenience, these are referred as under:-
"(i) CC No. 26/98
"IV Schedule A.P. Agriculture Pumping Supply Free supply to Agriculture tubewells covered as under shall continue till further order :
(i) Flat rate and metered rate category getting supply from rural/urban feeders.
(ii) Only agricultural tubewells released under Small Power Industrial category as per policy of Board issued vide CC 16/90 dated 30-3-90.
(iii) Tubewell connections released to PSTC/IB and under TCA Scheme."
"CC No. 10/2006
Sub:Free Electricity to Agricultural Tube well consumers It has been decided by Government of Punjab to give free electricity w.e.f. 1-9-2005 onward to all categories of Agricultural Tubewell such as Tube well covered under Flat Rate/Metered Supply category. Agricultural Tube Wells First Appeal No. 984 of 2015 7 released under SP category, tubewell connections released to farmers of Kandi Area, PAU Ludhiana, PSTC/IB lift irrigation other connections released under SP/MS category and under TCA (Technical Co-op Assistance)."
12. In case we go through Circular No. 26/98, it has been mentioned that free supply to Agriculture Tubewells shall continue till further orders. The crux of the circular is free supply to agriculture tubewells. Even under the SP category only agriculture tubewells were entitled to free electricity supply. As per Circular No. 10/2006 again it has been reiterated that all categories of agricultural tubewells such as tubewell covered under flat rate category. Agricultural tubewells released under SP category to specific categories were entitled to free supply. The complainant does not come under this category. Merely because of the fact that complainant had taken the tubewell connection under SP category, automatically he will not be entitled to free electricity supply. The pre- condition in that was that the connection should have been for agricultural purposes only. However, as referred above, the connection was not taken by complainant not for agricultural purpose but for the purpose of fish farming. Ops in their written reply has also referred to Circular No. 71/03. It has also been referred in the order passed by the learned District Forum. It also stipulates that AP tariff be charged instead of SP tariff as these connections were being used for agricultural purposes for irrigating crops only. Again this circular stipulates that only those connections, which were released for agricultural purposes for irrigating crops only were covered. First Appeal No. 984 of 2015 8 Moreover, in case complainant was entitled for conversion of its SP category connection to AP category, he should apply for same to the Op but counsel for the appellant/complainant was unable to refer any application vide which he had made any request to Ops to consider his connection for AP category. On that point, his complaint filed before the Forum is also premature because there was no deficiency in services on the part of Ops, in case he does not apply for conversion of his connection from SP category to AP category.
13. We are of the opinion that the learned District Forum has considered in detail that the case of complainant is not covered under AP consumer, therefore, he was not entitled to free supply. We agree with the findings so recorded by the District Forum and moreover, as referred above, even he does not come within the definition of the consumer as the connection was taken by him for commercial purposes.
14. In view of the above we do not see any merit in the appeal. The appellant/complainant was unable to make out any point for admission of the appeal, therefore, the appeal is dismissed in limine.
15. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 7.12.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran) Presiding Judicial Member (Jasbir Singh Gill) Member December 12, 2015. (Surinder Pal Kaur) as Member First Appeal No. 984 of 2015 9