State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Pseb vs Gss Agro Pvt. Ltd. on 24 February, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1078 of 2003
Date of institution: 18.08.2003
Date of decision : 24. 02.2010
Punjab State Electricity Board through Senior Executive Engineer, Sub-Urban
Division, Ferozepur.
.....Appellants
Versus
GSS Agro Pvt. Ltd. village Suba Quadima Pvt. Ltd. Company registered under
Companies Act through its Managing Director/Authorised person Sh.Narinder
Singh.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 19.06.2003
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Ferozepur.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Sh.Piare Lal Garg, Member
Mrs.Amarpreet Sharma, Member Present:-
For the appellants : Sh.Rajesh Chaudhary, Advocate For the respondents : Sh.A.M.Punchhi, Advocate JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT M/s G.S.S.Agro Private Limited (in short "the respondents") was a Company registered under the Companies Act. Narinder Singh being its Managing Director was authorised to pursue this litigation.
2. It was further pleaded that the respondent had the electric connection bearing A/c No.L/S/13 for the purpose of running the Rice Sheller. The electricity bills were being paid by the respondents regularly. Therefore, the respondents are the consumer of the appellants.
3. It was further pleaded that originally the respondents had applied for this electric connection for running the Sheller. They received the demand notice First Appeal No.1078 of 2003 2 dated 8.10.1997 from the appellants for depositing a sum of Rs.3,23,228/- as expenditure for installing 11 KV lines for supplying the electric connection to the respondents. The respondents, accordingly, deposited the amount of Rs.3,23,228/- and the electric connection bearing A/c No.L/S/13 was installed in the premises of the respondents in the year 1997.
4. It was further pleaded that after the installation of the electric connection, it was found by the respondents that a huge material required for laying the lines for supplying the electric connection to the respondents was lying surplus and unutilised at the spot. On this, the respondents asked the appellants to return the surplus material lying at the spot or to prepare a revised estimates of the material actually used for supplying the electric connection bearing A/c No.L/S/13 and for the refund of the excess amount charged by them.
5. It was further pleaded that the appellants had prepared the revised estimates on 17.11.1998. As per these estimates, the costs of material actually used at the site for laying 11 KV lines for giving the electric connection to the respondents came out to be Rs.1,99,224/-. The value of the unutilised items came out to be Rs.1,24,004/- which was illegally withheld by the appellants. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants for recovering the excess amount of Rs.1,24,004/-, the respondents filed a complaint against them in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (in short "the District Forum") for claiming refund of Rs.1,24,004/- with interest. Compensation and costs were also prayed.
6. The appellants filed the written reply. It was admitted that the respondents had applied for the electric connection for running the Sheller. The respondents were commercial organisation and were running commercial activity and got installed the electric connection for commercial purposes. Therefore, the respondents were not the consumer.
7. It was not denied that on the receipt of the demand notice from the appellants, the respondents had deposited a sum of Rs.3,23,228/- and, First Appeal No.1078 of 2003 3 thereafter, the electric connection bearing A/c No.L/S/13 was released to the respondents for running the Rice Sheller. It was, however, denied if the respondents were entitled to the refund of Rs.1,24,004/-.
8. It was further pleaded that as per the instructions of the appellants issued vide CC No.4 of 1996, the respondents were liable to pay service connection charges @ Rs.750/- per K.W. and variable (cable) charges @ Rs.125/- per meter beyond 300 metres or actual whichever was excessive. The load of the respondents was 190 KWs and the service connection charges @ 750 per K.W. came out to be Rs.1,42,500/-. The total length of service cable installed was 4572 metres in 3 phases which came out to be 1524 metre and after deducting 300 metres from 1524 metres, the amount of variable charges @ Rs.125/- per meter on 1224 metres came out to be Rs.1,53,000/-. Thus, the total expenditure amount came out to be Rs.1,42,500/- + Rs.1,53,000/- = 2,95,500/-. Only an amount of Rs.27,728/- was received in excess and not Rs.1,24,004/- as claimed by the respondents.
9. It was further pleaded that the appellants had not received any letter from the respondents nor the respondents had ever contacted the appellants in this respect. The respondents have concocted a false story in order to make a false claim. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
10. The respondents filed the affidavit of Narinder Singh, Managing Director as Ex.C1. The respondents also proved documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C18. On the other hand, the appellants proved documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3.
11. After considering the pleadings of the parties and the affidavits/documents produced on the file by them, the learned District Forum accepted the complaint with costs of Rs.1000/- vide impugned order dated 19.06.2003 and directed the appellants to refund the amount of Rs.1,24,004/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit of Rs.3,23,228/- till the date of refund.
First Appeal No.1078 of 2003 4
12. Hence, this appeal.
13. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 19.06.2003 be set aside.
14. 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 with costs.
15. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
16. The admitted facts are that the respondents had applied for electric connection for sanctioned load of 190 KWs. For that purpose, 11 KV lines were to be laid down by the appellants. Accordingly, they issued the demand notice for an amount of Rs.3,23,228/- being the costs of the material etc. The respondents had, accordingly, deposited this amount. 11 KV lines were laid down and the electric connection bearing A/c No.L/S/13 was released to the respondents. The electric connection is running with which the respondents are running the Rice Sheller and they are making the payment of electricity bills regularly.
17. The dispute arose when the respondents noticed a huge material lying unutilised. The appellants assessed the value of the utilised material to be Rs.1,99,224/- and the value of the unutilised material which was lying at the spot automatically came out to be Rs.1,24,004/-. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants, the respondents filed a complaint against them in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (in short "the District Forum") seeking refund of the amount of Rs.1,24,004/- with interest, compensation and costs.
18. The first objection of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the respondents were not the consumer as they were running a commercial activity and they were a commercial organisation.
19. This submission has been considered.
20. It has no merits.
First Appeal No.1078 of 2003 5
21. Since the respondents had applied for electric connection to the appellants after depositing certain amounts, therefore, they became the consumer qua the appellants. In this context, reference can be made to the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as as "Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation and another v. Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd., 2009 CTJ 233 (Supreme Court) (CP)". The facts of that case were as under : -
"2. As the principal arguments have been advanced in Civil Appeal No.1879 of 2003, we take up the facts of that appeal which are thus, briefly put. M/s. Ashok Iron Works Private Limited (for short, 'the company') is a Private Limited Company and engaged in the activity of manufacture of iron products. The company applied for the supply of electrical energy (2500 KVA) to the Karnataka Electricity Board (now Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation and hereinafter referred to as 'KPTC').................The company accordingly filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, 'the Act, 1986') before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Belgaum claiming damages in the sum of Rs.99,900/- for delay in supply of electricity. The complaint was contested by KPTC, and, inter alia, preliminary objection was raised that complaint was not maintainable as the complainant was engaged in commercial activity and electricity being goods; sale of goods to a commercial consumer for a commercial purpose was outside the scope of the Act, 1986."
22. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the supply of electricity by the Electricity Board to a consumer was a service within the First Appeal No.1078 of 2003 6 meaning of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was further held in this case by the Hon'ble Supreme court that as per word 'person' occurring in Section 2(1)(d) read with Section 2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, even a Company incorporated under the Companies Act is covered by the definition of person. Therefore, considered from this angle also, the respondents are 'person' entitled to file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act against the appellants.
23. So far as the value of the articles utilised is concerned, the respondents have proved the estimates prepared as Ex.C10, according to which, the value of the material used/installed at the site was Rs.1,99,224/-. The appellants have also produced on the file similar document as Ex.R2. Therefore, there is no dispute that the value of the articles utilised at the spot was to the tune of Rs.1,99,224/-.
24. Now the question arises whether the value of the articles left at the spot was Rs.1,24,004/- or not.
25. The value of these unutilised articles was not separately assessed either by any of the officials of the appellants or by the respondents. The respondents have applied a simple formula of deducting the amount of Rs.1,99,224/- out of the amount of Rs.3,23,228/- deposited by him and it was pleaded therefore that the respondents are entitled to the refund of the remaining amount of Rs.1,24,004/-.
26. The respondents have forgotten that the articles once purchased are not returnable. Once the items were purchased for a particular amount by the appellants from the vendor and the appellants would not be entitled to refund that unutilised material to them.
27. Moreover, the unutilised material may not be in the same form in which it was purchased by the appellants for installation purposes. This way also, the value of the unutilised material gets depreciated. First Appeal No.1078 of 2003 7
28. Moreover, in the evaluation sheet Ex.C10, the appellants have nowhere claimed the service connection charges. The appellants having installed the 11 KV lines are entitled to the service connection charges under Circular No.4/1996. After all, the respondents were liable not only to spend for material utilised for laying down 11 KV lines but they are also liable to pay for the labour work used for this purpose. It is a part of the expenditure which has to be incurred by the consumer.
29. If the appellants supplied the electric lines in the manner in which it is claimed by the respondents, the appellants would become pamper is no time as they would have no income for laying down the electric connections and they will have to spend on the pay and allowances of the officials/officers/labour expenses for rendering service to the respondents. This logic of the respondents of seeking the refund of Rs.1,24,004/- is totally beyond logic and is not worthy of even being entertained.
30. If this amount of service connection charges @ Rs.750 per K.W. @ 190 KW to the tune of Rs.1,42,500/- is claimed from the respondents, the respondents would become still liable to pay Rs.18000/- instead of seeking refund of Rs.1,24,004/-.
31. But very fairly, the appellants have thus admitted that the service connection charges amounted to Rs.1,42,500/-. The expenditure on the total laying of the service cable installed came out to be Rs.1,53,000/- and the total amount came out to be Rs.2,95,500/- and that the appellants are liable to refund the amount of Rs.27,728/-.
32. Therefore, the respondent are held entitled to the refund of Rs.27,728/-.
33. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is partly accepted and the appellants are directed to refund the amount of Rs.27,728/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 28.6.2002 till the date of payment and the impugned judgment dated 19.06.2003 is modified to that extent. The First Appeal No.1078 of 2003 8 respondents are also held entitled to Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation in both the Courts.
34. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount of Rs.25,000/- alongwith interest, if any, be remitted by the Registry to the respondents by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants. The interest on the amount of Rs.25,000/- shall stop running with effect from the date the appellants had deposited the same in this Commission. It shall be what has accrued on this amount when it remained deposited by this Commission in the Bank. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellants to the respondents immediately.
35. The arguments in this case were heard on 16.02.2010 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
36. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (PIARE LAL GARG) MEMBER (MRS.AMARPREET SHARMA) MEMBER February 24, 2010.
Paritosh