State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Rattan Chand Atta Chakki vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. on 5 January, 2018
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.521 of 2017
Date of Institution: 06.07.2017
Order reserved on:02.01.2018
Date of Decision : 05.01.2018
M/s Rattan Chand Atta Chakki, through its Prop sohan lal aged
about 52 years, son of Late Sh. Tarsem Lal, R/o Shergarh, Tehsil
and District Hoshiarpur through its attorney Gurjit Singh.
.....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division, civil
Lines, Hoshiarpur.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Division civil
Lines, Hoshiarpur through its XEN.
3. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall Patiala
through its Chief Managing Director.
..Respondents/Opposite Parties
Appeal against order dated
02.06.2017 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Hoshiarpur.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-
For the appellant : None
For the respondents :Sh. Jagdeep Singh Rana, Advocate
............................................ F.A. No. 521 of 2017 2 SURINDER PAL KAUR, MEMBER :-
The appellant has filed this appeal against order dated
02.06.2017 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Hoshiarpur (in short the 'District Forum'), vide which, the complaint filed by the appellant of this appeal was dismissed.
2. The complainant filed the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against OPs on the averments that he has small power electricity connection, bearing account no.3002422791 for running small power Atta Chakki to earn his livelihood for him and his family and the same has been the only source of his earning. Since January, 2016 he paid all the bills as per actual consumption, but in Feb, 2016 OPs disconnected his old meter and installed a new meter in lieu of that. Since July 2016, no bill was issued to him and he made many requests to OPs regarding issuance of bill, as per consumption charges, but in the month of July 2016, he was shocked to receive a bill of Rs.11,20,180/- which was huge compared with his actual consumption charges. He approached OPs number of times and made request to issue new bill as per his actual consumption. He had shown previous bills to OPs and told that actual consumption was not more than Rs.3000/- and his minimum consumption was about Rs.2000/- only. But they did not pay any heed to his genuine request and rather disconnected his electricity connection on the ground of nonpayment of bill. He filed a complaint before the Electricity Disputes Redressal F.A. No. 521 of 2017 3 Committee Patiala, but no order was passed and he also moved an application dated 24.10.2016 before sub divisional office Civil Lines, Hoshiarpur to issue a new bill as per his actual consumption charges, but to no effect. In the month of December, 2016 another application was filed before the Chief Engineer Grievance Forum Patiala by him with a request to issue new bill, vide letter dated 13.12.16/2338. He was asked to deposit Rs.2 lacs which was not possible, as he is poor man and Atta Chakki is the only source of his earning. He again requested the OPs for correcting the electricity bill in question, but they flatly refused. At last, they filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking following directions against OPs:
a) to quash the bill dated 15.7.16 and further not to disconnect the electricity connection bearing account No.3002422791;
b) to pay Rs.20,000/- as damages; and any other relief as interest of justice.
3. Upon notice, OPs filed written reply taking the preliminary objection that the matter has already been pending before dispute settlement Committee, therefore, complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint before the District Forum. On merits, it was pleaded that complainant is not consumer, as he has been running Atta Chakki for commercial purposes and sanctioned load of connection is 11.350KV. On 1.1.16, the meter was found defective, as per report of meter reader, therefore, old meter was removed on 1.1.16 by Surinder F.A. No. 521 of 2017 4 Pal Singh JE by sending the meter in ME lab against Challan No.386 dated 9.2.16. As per report of ME lab, the terminal block of meter was found burnt. Complainant filed the complaint before consumer Dispute Redressal Forum committee, Patiala as well and it has been ordered through Memo No.T226/2016 that the disputed period bills/average bills along with current bills may be got deposited as per supply and the balance amount may please be treated as disputed amount and minimum 20% of disputed amount may be got deposited from the consumer/complainant, but the complainant did not deposit 20% of disputed bills. OPs have no intention to disconnect the connection of the complainant. Complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint, as the matter is already res-subjudice before the competent authority. All other allegations raised in the complaint were denied vehemently by OPs. It prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 along with documents Ex.C-2 to C-17 and closed the evidence. Against it, OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Jaswant Singh, AEE of PSPCL as Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum dismissed the complaint of the complainant, as detailed therein. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum, the complainant now appellant has directed this appeal against the same.
F.A. No. 521 of 2017 5
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the Respondents as none came present on behalf of appellant during arguments of appeal. We have also gone through the record of the case.
6. It is argued by the counsel for the Respondents in this appeal that District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint of the complainant, as complainant has already availed of the remedy before the Disputes Settlement Committee Patiala and complainant has no right to file the complaint under CP Act thereafter. The counsel for the respondents relied upon judgment of this commission PSEB Vs Satish Kumar F.A No1000 of 2002 decided on 13.12.2006. We have to decide whether complainant can file the complaint under CP Act or not after availing his remedy before Dispute Settlement Committee. Since he had availed the remedy before the Disputes Settlement Committee Patiala and the Zonal Level Disputes Settlement Committee and they had already passed the order to that effect. The complainant could not invoke the jurisdiction of the district Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 after availing of his remedy before Dispute Settlement Committee. Suffice it to say, that under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the orders which are passed by Disputes Settlement Committee or Zonal Level Disputes Settlement Committee attained finality. Undoubtedly, the complainant has been given additional remedy under Section 3 of the CP Act 1986 to invoke the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora, however, in case the complainant has already invoked the F.A. No. 521 of 2017 6 jurisdiction of competent Forum under law, then subsequently, he cannot file the complaint before Consumer Forum. Reference be made to law laid down by National Commission in case Dhir Singh Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board and anr. in R.P. No.399 of 2003 decided on 24.04.2007, wherein it has been held that in case complainant was not satisfied with the relief of Disputes Settlement Committee, then he should have proceeded in appeal against the order. The petitioner could not have filed the complaint before a Consumer Forum after availing of the remedy before Dispute Settlement Committee.
7. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the appellant of this appeal and hence, the same is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs, Order of the District Forum under challenge in this appeal is affirmed.
8. Certified copy of order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
9. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (Surinder Pal Kaur) MEMBER January 05, 2018 DB