State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Elfin Drugs Pvt. Ltd. vs H.P. State Electricity Board. & Ors. on 18 December, 2017
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
First Appeal No. : 176/2017
Date of Presentation: 18.03.2017
Order Reserved on : 16.08.2017
Date of Order : 18.12.2017
......
M/s. Elfin Drugs Private Limited R/o. Village Berson Post Office
Majholi Tehsil Nalagarh District Solan H.P through its
Managing Director -cum- Authorised Signatory.
...... Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. H.P. State Electricity Board Vidyut Bhawan Shimla-4 H.P.
through its Secretary.
......Respondent No.1/Opposite party No.1
2. The Superintending Engineer HPSEB Electrical Circle
Solan District Solan H.P.
......Respondent No.2/opposite party No.2
3. The Executive Engineer HPSEB Electrical Division
Nalagarh District Solan H.P.
......Respondent No.3/opposite party No.3
4. The Assistant Executive Engineer HPSEB Electrical Sub-
Division No.1. Nalagarh District Solan.
......Respondent No.4/opposite party No.4
Coram
Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi Member
Hon'ble Ms. Meena Verma Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For Appellant : Mr. Swaran Sharma vice Mr. Peeyush
Verma Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Ramakant Sharma Advocate.
1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
M/s. Elfin Drugs Pvt. Ltd. Versus HPSEB & Ors.
(F.A. No.176/2017)
JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT:
O R D E R :-
1. Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 17.01.2017 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.263/2011 title M/s. Elfin Drugs (P) Ltd. Versus H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. & Ors. Brief facts of consumer complaint:
2. Complainant M/s. Elfin Drugs Pvt. Ltd. filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that opposite party No.1 is providing electricity service to complainant. It is pleaded that complainant M/s. Elfin Drugs Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in the work of production of sale of pharmaceutical drugs. It is pleaded that complainant has obtained subsidy from the State of Himachal Pradesh and also obtained loan from Nationalized Banks. It is further pleaded that various Directors who are associated with the complainant company are all from the same family and are earning their livelihood by way of self employment. It is pleaded that complainant company was granted electricity connection bearing MS-80 in the year 2006. It is further pleaded that official of electricity department conducted surprise check and thereafter issued 2 M/s. Elfin Drugs Pvt. Ltd. Versus HPSEB & Ors.
(F.A. No.176/2017) excessive electricity bill to the tune of Rs.1156053/-(Eleven lac fifty six thousand fifty three). It is further pleaded that allegations of unauthorized extension of load are wrong. Complainant sought relief to quash and set aside the demand of Rs.1156053/-(Eleven lac fifty six thousand fifty three) raised in bill No.38. In addition complainant sought additional relief for payment of Rs.5.00 lac (Five lac) as damages for mental torture and harassment and financial loss caused. In addition complainant also sought relief for payment of Rs.20000/-(Twenty thousand) as costs of litigation.
3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties pleaded therein that consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. It is pleaded that complainant is estopped to file the present complaint due to his own act, conduct and acquiescence. It is further pleaded that connection was obtained by complainant for commercial purpose. It is further pleaded that complainant has connected extension load in an authorised manner and this extended loan was detected by Flying Squad team on dated 25.09.2010. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought.
4. Learned District Forum dismissed the complaint filed by complainant. Feeling aggrieved against order passed 3 M/s. Elfin Drugs Pvt. Ltd. Versus HPSEB & Ors.
(F.A. No.176/2017) by Learned District Forum complainant filed present appeal before State Commission.
5. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully.
6. Following points arise for determination in present appeal.
1. Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal.
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
7. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant has given statement before learned District Forum on dated 12.09.2012 that affidavit of Dilpreet Singh already filed alongwith the complaint be treated as evidence for adjudication of controversial facts and complainant did not file any additional evidence relating to controversial facts under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
8. Opposite parties filed affidavit of Shri Dinesh Kumar Addl. Superintending Engineer Electrical Division HPSEBL Nalagarh. There is recital in affidavit that complainant applied for electricity connection on dated 27.04.2006 for load of 95 KW. There is further recital in 4 M/s. Elfin Drugs Pvt. Ltd. Versus HPSEB & Ors.
(F.A. No.176/2017) affidavit that on 15.06.2009 complainant applied for extension of connected load from 94.6 KW to 739.5 KW vide application No.321625 dated 15.06.2009. There is recital in affidavit that extension load was sanctioned to complainant subject to compliance of certain formalities. There is further recital in affidavit that premises was inspected by Sr. Executive Engineer and Flying Squad of electricity department. There is recital in affidavit that unauthorized connection of electricity was found at the time of inspection. There is further recital in affidavit that unauthorized connection was detected by flying squad team on dated 25.09.2010. There is recital in affidavit that demand notice was issued to complainant relating to consumption of unauthorized electricity. There is recital in affidavit that complainant himself is a defaulter.
9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that order of learned District Forum is contrary to law and contrary to proved facts is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that on dated 04.12.2010 electricity department issued notice to complainant annexure- C9 relating to unauthorized extension of load. There is specific recital in notice to complainant that complainant was found to have extended unauthorized electricity load from 95 KW to 251 KW. There is special recital in notice that 5 M/s. Elfin Drugs Pvt. Ltd. Versus HPSEB & Ors.
(F.A. No.176/2017) complainant has committed breach of condition of electricity supply. It is proved on record that electricity load was extended upto 735.5 KW till 30.05.2010 by electricity department vide annexure-C10. It is also proved on record that thereafter premises of complainant was inspected by Sr. Executive Engineer and Flying Squad on dated 25.09.2010 and it was observed by Flying Squad that complainant has installed unauthorized electricity connection. Thereafter memo was issued to complainant on dated 21.03.2011 by Assistant Engineer Electrical Sub Division No.1 HPSEB Ltd. Nalagarh Himachal Pradesh as to why provision of unauthorized use of electricity should not be invoked. Response was sought from complainant within seven days. It is also proved on record that thereafter again memo was issued to complainant by Addl. Superintending Engineer Electrical Division HPSEB Ltd. Nalagarh on dated 25.05.2011. Penalty to the tune of Rs.1156053/-(Eleven lac fifty six thousand fifty three) was imposed upon the complainant for unauthorized use of electricity.
10. State Commission is of the opinion that complainant did not place on record any authorized connection and it is proved on record by way of affidavit of Shri Dinesh Kumar Addl. Superintending Engineer that complainant had used electricity in unauthorized manner. 6
M/s. Elfin Drugs Pvt. Ltd. Versus HPSEB & Ors.
(F.A. No.176/2017) Affidavit filed by Shri Dinesh Kumar Addl. Superintending Engineer is trustworthy, reliable and inspire confidence of State Commission. There is no reason to disbelieve the affidavit filed by Addl. Superintending Engineer. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that Shri Dinesh Kumar Addl. Superintending Engineer has hostile animus against the complainant at any point of time.
11. It is held that penalty to the tune of Rs.1156053/- (Eleven lac fifty six thousand fifty three) was imposed upon the complainant for unauthorized use of electricity. It is held that no one can be allowed to use unauthorized electricity. See 1998(2) CPC 589 titled Ashok Kumar Versus M.P.E.B and Another. See 1994(1) CPJ 45 NC titled Pool Chand Agarwal Versus Bihar State Electricity Board & Anr. Also see 1992 CPC 338 titled Shri Raghbir Singh Versus The Chairman Punjab State Electricity Board. Also see AIR 1984 Apex Court 657 titled M/s. Rohtas Industries Ltd. Versus Chairman Bihar State Electricity Board and others.
12. Submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party that order passed by learned District Forum is in accordance with law and in accordance with proved facts is decided accordingly. It is held that order passed by learned District Forum is strictly in accordance 7 M/s. Elfin Drugs Pvt. Ltd. Versus HPSEB & Ors.
(F.A. No.176/2017) with law and is in accordance with proved facts. It is held that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to interfere in the order passed by learned District Forum. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order
13. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is dismissed. Order passed by learned District Forum is affirmed. Annexure-C9 notice issued by Assistant Engineer Electrical Sub Division No.1 HPSEB Nalagarh to complainant dated 04.12.2010, Annexure-C10 wherein electricity load extended till 30.05.2010 by Chief Engineer (OP) South HPSEB Shimla-4 to complainant and notice issued to complainant by Assistant Engineer Electrical Sub Division No.1 HPSEB Ltd. Nalagarh dated 21.03.2011 qua unauthorized electricity connection and notice issued to complainant by Addl. Superintending Engineer Electrical Division HPSEB Ltd. Nalagarh dated 25.05.2011 qua unauthorized electricity connection will form part and parcel of order. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free 8 M/s. Elfin Drugs Pvt. Ltd. Versus HPSEB & Ors.
(F.A. No.176/2017) of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Vijay Pal Khachi Member Meena Verma Member 18.12.2017 KD* 9