State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Electricity Board vs M/S Shiva Protein Products Private ... on 24 March, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37A, CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 718 OF 2010
Date of Institution: 30.04.2010
Date of Decision: 24.03.2014
1. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala through its Chairman.
2. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Mansa.
.....Appellants/Opposite Parties
VERSUS
M/s Shiva Protein Products Private Limited, Talwandi Road, Village
Gehle, Tehsil and District Mansa through its Director Arun Goyal S/o
Sh.Ramesh Goyal, a resident of Mansa.
.....Respondent/Complainant
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1547 of 2010
Date of Institution: 03.09.2010
Date of Decision: 24.03.2014
M/s Shiva Protein Products Private Limited, Talwandi Road, Village
Gehle Tehsil and District Mansa through its Director Arun Goyal S/o
Sh.Ramesh Goyal, a resident of Mansa.
.....Appellant/Complainant
VERSUS
1. Punjab State Electricity Board, (Now Punjab State Power
Corporation Ltd.), Patiala through its Chairman.
2. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board (Now
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.), Mansa.
.....Respondents/Opposite Parties
First Appeals against the order
dated 16.2.2010 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Mansa.
Quorum:
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Sh.Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
First Appeal No.718 of 2010 Page 2 of 7 & First Appeal No.1547 of 2010 Present in First Appeal No.718 of 2010: For the appellants : Sh.Arun Bakshi, Advocate For the respondent : Sh.R.S.Joshi, Advocate BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER
This order shall dispose of above referred two appeals which have been preferred against the order dated 16.2.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa (in short "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by M/s Shiva Protein Products Private Limited, complainant, was partly allowed and the amount of Rs.1,15,280/- as "sundry charges" and the amount of Rs.1,41,668/- on account of "Peak Load Exemption Charges"
pertaining to the period 1.5.2009 to 31.5.2009, raised in the bill Ex.C- 6 dated 8.6.2009, were set aside.
2. The facts, as stated in the complaint, are that the complainant was having an electric connection, bearing account No.LS-35 having sanctioned load of 990 KW with contract demand of 780 KVA. It requested the opposite parties for extension of the load upto 700 KW to be used during "peak load hours" for the period 15.12.2008 to 30.4.2009. The opposite parties granted the same against payment of "peak load exemption charges", vide their letter dated 8.1.2009, in accordance with Circular No.2/98 and 11/98, which provided that peak load exemption could not be reduced, increased or withdrawn before 30.4.2009. Thereafter, it deposited the bill dated 11.5.2009 sent by the opposite parties in which PLE Charges from 8.1.2009 to 30.4.2009 were added. Then, it received another bill dated 8.6.2009 for the period from 1.5.2009 to 1.6.2009 in which an amount of First Appeal No.718 of 2010 Page 3 of 7 & First Appeal No.1547 of 2010 Rs.1,41,669/- was added on account of "Peak Load Exemption Charges" alongwith "Sundry Charges" of Rs.1,15.280/-. The complainant firm met the officials of the opposite parties and requested them to look into the matter, and on their advice, it deposited the amount of bill, vide receipt dated 17.6.2009. It even moved an application dated 17.6.2009 for the refund of this amount but till the filing of complaint nothing was heard from them. It sent a reminder in the month of July, 2009, but in vain. The opposite parties, vide memo dated 19.8.2009, extended the peak load exemption period from 30.4.2009 to 31.5.2009, of their own beyond 30.4.2009 and the Director personally visited the office of the opposite parties and requested the SDO for withdrawal of peak load exemption charges and sundry charges, but his request was not acceded to. It was not, at all, liable to pay the amount of Peak Load Exemption Charges and sundry charges included in the bill dated 8.6.2009, because it had never requested them for extension of peak load hours beyond 30.4.2009. The opposite parties thus indulged in unfair trade practice by imposing Peak Load Exemption Charges and Sundry Charges upon the complainant firm in an illegal and arbitrary manner, which amounted to deficiency in service on their part due to which it had been subjected to mental agony, torture, physical harassment and inconvenience. In the complaint filed before the District Forum, it sought directions to the opposite parties to refund Rs.1,41,669/- recovered as peak Load Exemption Charges and Rs.1,15,280/- recovered as sundry charges, alongwith interest @ 18% First Appeal No.718 of 2010 Page 4 of 7 & First Appeal No.1547 of 2010 w.e.f. 17.6.2009 till realization. Compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony, tension, harassment and inconvenience alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- were also demanded.
3. The opposite parties contested the allegations of the complaint and filed written reply by taking preliminary objection that the complainant is a private limited concern and was running its business for gain in crores and hundreds of employees were employed for manufacturing and selling its products. As such, it being involved in commercial activity, it cannot be termed as a consumer under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "the Act"). On merits, it was pleaded that vide memo dated 19.8.2009 the peak load exemption charges limit was enhanced upto 31.5.2009 and the complainant firm was liable to pay the amount of bill for the month of May, 2009. The bill dated 8.6.2009 for the period 1.5.2009 to 1.6.2009 was rightly issued to it by including Rs.1,41,669/- and Rs.1,15,280/- as sundry charges and amount of that bill was deposited voluntarily, vide receipt dated 17.6.2009. A clarification letter No.5925 dated 19.8.2009 was sent in accordance with circular No.11/98, as such, it was not entitled for the refund of the said amount.
4. The parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. The learned District Forum, after going through the pleadings of the parties and evidence on the record, partly allowed the complaint in the aforesaid terms.
First Appeal No.718 of 2010 Page 5 of 7
& First Appeal No.1547 of 2010
6. Aggrieved by the order, the opposite parties have preferred First Appeal No.718 of 2010 on the ground that the District Forum has wrongly concluded that the case of the complainant company fell into the bracket of deficiency in service, as the peak load exemption charges were wrongly demanded by the opposite parties through bill dated 8.6.2009 alongwith sundry charges of Rs.1,15,280/-. So far as the peak load extension is concerned, these were charged as per PR Circular No.11/2009 dated 24.4.2009. Sundry charges of Rs.98,268/- were refunded and were to be incorporated in subsequent bill for the month of May. The L.S. category bills are prepared by Senior Executive Engineer, Computer Service Centre, Patiala. The District Forum erred in concluding that the complainant company did not get the facility cancelled from the office of the opposite parties, who had granted them peak load exemption, otherwise their permission is deemed to have been extended upto 31.5.2009 as per PR Circular No.11/2009 dated 24.4.2009. The District Forum has not considered the fact that the complainant company was informed, vide memo No.5925 dated 19.8.2009 that peak load exemption period had been extended from 30.4.2009 to 31.5.2009. Hence, the amount charged in the bill 5/2009 to the complainant firm, is correct. Acceptance of the appeal and setting aside of the impugned order was prayed.
7. In the First Appeal No.1547 of 2010, preferred by the complainant firm, it was submitted that District Forum, while allowing the complaint, wrongly and illegally failed to grant compensation as claimed in the complaint. It was clear from the First Appeal No.718 of 2010 Page 6 of 7 & First Appeal No.1547 of 2010 record that the complainant had made no request to the opposite parties for the grant of extension in period of peak load hours beyond 30.4.2009 and the opposite parties of their own, extended the same from 1.5.2009 to 31.5.2009, still no compensation has been granted on account of mental pain and agony. The opposite parties enjoyed the amount deposited by the complainant firm and, as such, they are liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum but it was not granted. Since the complainant firm was involved in forced litigation by the opposite parties, it was entitled to get litigation expenses from the opposite parties.
8. We have thoroughly gone through the pleadings of the parties and have carefully perused the evidence on record.
9. The first and foremost question to be decided by this Commission is, whether the complainant company falls under the definition of a consumer qua the opposite parties? Admittedly, the electric connection No. LS-35 was installed for earning profits. Apparently, such a big mill, having sanctioned load of 990 KW with contract demand of 780 KVA under large supply category, cannot be run by the complainant himself and he must have employed number of labourers to run the same. It has nowhere pleaded in its complaint that the connection, meant for running the business on large scale, was obtained exclusively to earn its livelihood by way of self-employment. The complainant firm, being a private limited concern, cannot be said to be running the business by way of self-employment to earn livelihood; rather it is providing employment to number of employees. First Appeal No.718 of 2010 Page 7 of 7
& First Appeal No.1547 of 2010 Hence, it does not fall under the category of a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Therefore, the complaint filed by it under the Act was not maintainable.
10. In view of the above discussion and finding, the appeal (First Appeal No.718 of 2010) filed by the appellants/opposite parties is accepted and the impugned order of the District Forum is set aside. No order as to costs.
11. Accordingly, First Appeal No.1547 of 2010, filed by the complainant firm is dismissed.
12. The arguments in these appeals were heard on 12.3.2014 and the orders were reserved. Now, the orders be communicated to the parties.
13. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period because of the heavy pendency of the court cases.
14. Copy of this order be placed in First Appeal No.1547 of 2010 (M/s Shiva Protein Products Pvt.Ltd.V/s PSEB & anr.).
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER March 24, 2014 VINAY