State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ch. Amar Kumar vs Punjab State Electricity Board on 20 December, 2013
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.976 of 2009.
Date of Institution: 10.07.2009.
Date of Decision: 20.12.2013.
Ch. Amar Kumar S/o late Sh. Surja Ram, M/s Surja Ram & Sons, Karm
Road, Malout Mandi, Tehsil Malout, District Muktsar.
.....Appellant.
Versus
1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Executive Engineer
(Operation), Division Malout, Punjab State Electricity board,
Malout.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Operation, City Sub Division,
Punjab State Electricity Board, Malout, Tehsil Malout, District
Muktsar.
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated
25.05.2009 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Muktsar.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.
...................................
Present:- Sh. S.M. Wadhera, Advocate, counsel for the appellant.
Ms Daljit Kaur, Advocate, counsel for the respondents.
----------------------------------------
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
Ch. Amar Kumar, appellant/complainant (In short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 25.05.2009 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar (in short "the District Forum").First Appeal No.976 of 2009 2
2. Facts in brief are that the appellant filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the respondents/opposite parties (hereinafter called as "the respondents"), making the averments that he is running a cotton mill to earn his livelihood and to look after his family as well as for self employment. The appellant is having a seasonal electricity connection bearing Account No.Y-33-MC-01-00023 and he is paying the bills regularly.
3. The respondents issued a bill dated 09.04.2008 wherein Rs.40,780/- were added as sundry charges illegally and on inquiry, respondent no.2 informed that the said amount has been added for the violation of peak load hour restrictions. The appellant requested respondent no.2 to withdraw the bill, but respondent no.2 told that the appellant should pay the actual bill and assured to withdraw the sundry charges. The appellant deposited the said amount vide receipt No.164/85017 dated 21.04.2008. Thereafter, the respondents threatened to disconnect the connection. The demand raised is illegal.
4. Neither the MMTS, Bathinda nor any other official of the PSEB has checked the connection in the presence of the appellant or his representative, nor any copy of the checking report was signed or supplied. No copy of printout of the data of the meter was supplied nor it was downloaded in the presence of the representative of the appellant and the respondents have not complied with the mandatory rules and regulations of the Board. The penalty was imposed without giving any opportunity and the appellant has been condemned unheard.
5. It was prayed that the respondents may be restrained from recovering Rs.40,780/- illegally and in case the same is recovered, to First Appeal No.976 of 2009 3 refund the same along with interest @ 18% p.a. and to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
6. In the written version filed on behalf of the respondents, preliminary objections were raised that the appellant has concealed the material facts from the District Forum and he is using the connection for commercial purpose and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complaint is false and frivolous and has no cause of action and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Complicated questions of law and facts are involved and the civil court is competent.
7. On merits, it was admitted that the appellant is having the seasonal electricity connection and is paying the electricity bills regularly. It was further submitted that on 21.02.2008, Additional S.E./E.A. & MMTS, Bathinda checked the connection of the appellant and the data down load as per rules and regulations. At the time of checking, one person was present at the spot and the data load was checked in his presence and he signed the same. The data load was checked by Addl.S.E. by electronic equipment at the spot. The checking was conducted due to violation of peak load hour restrictions. It was found that the appellant used the peak load on different dates and an amount of Rs.40,780/- was charged from the appellant and the demand raised is legal and as per rules and regulations of the Board. All other allegations were denied and it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
8. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
9. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that from the perusal of printout of meter data First Appeal No.976 of 2009 4 down load on 27.02.2008 to 26.03.2008, it is made out that the peak load hour violations have been made by the consumer. The respondents have placed on file peak load restriction violation entries Ex.OP-1 and the same were supplied to the appellant. The peak load restrictions are to be observed by the industrialists every year, but the appellant has not complied the same and the respondents have rightly issued bill Ex.C-3 for Rs.40,780/-. There is no deficiency in service. The complaint was dismissed.
10. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.05.2009, the appellant has come up in appeal.
11. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
12. The appeal was filed on the grounds that the District Forum has not considered the fact that there was no document to prove that even the peak load hour restrictions were got noted from the appellant. The respondents failed to supply instructions and without communication of the same, the penalty could not be imposed upon the appellant. The order under appeal is against the facts and is liable to be set aside.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued on the similar lines and has contended that the instructions were not brought to the notice of the appellant and no notice was served before imposing penalty.
14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that there was no general notice to the public. The checking was done on 21.02.2008 and the appellant was found violating the peak load hour restrictions and the data down load was checked at the spot First Appeal No.976 of 2009 5 and the amount was rightly calculated. The order passed by the District Forum is legal and valid and there is no ground to interfere with the same and the appeal may be dismissed.
15. We have considered the respective version/submissions of the parties and have carefully monitored the entire record.
16. The checking was done on 21.02.2008 and the appellant was found violating the peak load hour restrictions. The checking report was signed by the representative of the appellant. The data down load was checked by the Addl. S.E. by electronic equipment at the spot. The argument that peak load hour restrictions were not brought to the notice of the appellant, is without any basis. As per statement of Sh. Satpal, L.D.C., no individual notice is given qua peak load hour restrictions. The general notice was given in the media. The telephonic notice was given to the appellant through complaint centre of the PSEB. The charges levied by the respondents are as per rules and regulations of the PSEB. The order passed by the District Forum is detailed and speaking and there is no ground to interfere with the same.
17. While parting with the order, we will also mention that the appellant is running a cotton mill and has taken the industrial connection and is running the said mill for earning huge profit and is not even the consumer, as he is running the mill for commercial purpose and mere writing for self employment or earning livelihood is not sufficient.
18. Sequel to the above discussion, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned order under appeal dated 25.05.2009 passed by the District Forum is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs. First Appeal No.976 of 2009 6
19. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 16.12.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
20. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Judicial Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member December 20, 2013.
(Gurmeet S)