State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Chandan Rice And General Mills Dhani ... vs Punjab State Electricity Board, ... on 26 August, 2013
2nd Addl. Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1051 of 2007
Date of institution: 01.08.2007
Date of decision : 26.8.2013
Chandan Rice and General Mills Dhani Village Malout, Tehsil Malout,
District Muktsar, through its partner Shashi Bhushan.
.....Appellant
Versus
1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, The Mall,
Patiala.
2. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Malout,
District Muktsar.
3. Asstt. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, City
Sub Division, Malout, Tehsil Malout, District Muktsar.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated
03.05.2007 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar.
Before:-
Sh. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Sh. Piare Lal Garg, Member Sh. Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Argued By:-
For the appellant : Sh. I.S. Maan, Advocate
For the respondents : None
PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by the appellant/Complainant- Chandan Rice Mills (hereinafter called 'the appellant') against the order dated 03.05.2007 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar (hereinafter called the 'District Forum') vide which complaint of the complainant was dismissed by the District Forum. First Appeal No. 1051 of 2007 2
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant and his partners were unemployed Youngmen and to earn their livelihood and for self employment installed a rice mill at village Malout in the name and style of Chandan Rice and General Mills. The appellant applied for the electricity connection to the respondent No. 3 and fulfilled the formalities of the respondents. The respondents sanctioned the electricity connection and directed the appellant to deposit certain amounts. The appellant deposited Rs. 3350/- on 19.07.2004 vide receipt No. 561/44249, Rs. 54,000/- on 03.09.2004 vide receipt No. 70/61108, Rs. 27,500/- on 29.09.2004 vide receipt No. 136/61108, Rs. 2,74,449/- on 29.09.2004 vide receipt No. 135/61108 and Rs. 7281/- on 05.11.2004 vide receipt No. 235/61108 i.e. total Rs. 3,67,180/- for the release of electric connection. The estimate of 34 poles was prepared which were to be installed for the release of the electric connection but at the spot only 26 poles were installed by the respondents to release the electric connection to the appellant. The remaining material against which the amount was deposited by the appellant was usurped by the respondents. Account No. MS-33/0030 was allotted to the appellant by the respondents. The appellant was paying the bills regularly to the respondents.
3. The appellant received a bill No. 1384 dated 29.12.2005 vide which a demand of Rs. 85,790/- was raised. In the said bill, Rs. 11,127/- was added as power factor surcharge. The appellant after receipt of the bill, approached the respondent No. 3 for the correction of the bill regarding the charges of Rs. 11127/- which were added as First Appeal No. 1051 of 2007 3 power factor surcharge. It was assured by respondent No. 3 that the amount of power factor surcharge will be deducted in the next proceeding bill. The appellant again received a bill No. 1413 dated 28.01.2006 vide which a demand of Rs. 1,43,550/- was raised and in the said bill Rs. 25,228/- was added as power factor surcharge. The demand of the respondents of power factor surcharge added in the bill No. 1384 and 1413 was illegal and arbitrary and liable to be quashed. The meter was running accurately in the Mill of the appellant. No notice was issued by the respondents before the issuance of the bills in dispute regarding the charging of power factor surcharge. The complaint was filed with the prayer that demand of the respondents regarding power factor surcharge may be quashed and the respondents may be directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and harassment as well as Rs. 5000/- as litigation expenses.
4. Upon notice, reply was filed by the respondents taking preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable as the appellant does not fall within the definition of Consumer. The electric connection was obtained by the appellant for commercial purpose as such the complaint was also not maintainable as per the Consumer Protection Act. No cause of action had accrued to the appellant to file the complaint. It was pleaded that commercial circular bearing No. 56/2005 dated 29.08.2005 was issued by the Chief Engineer Commercial which provides that the monthly charges of power factor of the plants and apparatus shall not be less than 0.90 w.e.f. 01.07.2005 and if the monthly average of the power factor falls below First Appeal No. 1051 of 2007 4 0.90, the medium supply consumer shall pay surcharge of 1% for each 0.01 decrease in the monthly average power factor below 0.90 to 0.80, the surcharge shall be 2% for each 0.01 decrease on monthly average power factor below 0.80. The appellant was having sanctioned load of 61.589 kw, as such he was bound to maintain the average of the power factor at 0.90 as per the above circular. The appellant failed to maintain the average of the power factor at 0.90, as such the demand of Rs. 11,127/- vide bill dated 29.12.2005 and Rs. 25,228/- vide bill No. 28.01.2006 was rightly raised from the appellant by the respondents. Complicated questions of the facts and law were involved, as such the District Forum was not competent to decide the complaint in summary proceedings. On merits, the same version was taken by the respondents and dismissal of the complaint was prayed with costs in the interest of justice.
5. The District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, the complaint of the appellant was dismissed.
6. Aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the present appeal is filed by the appellant on the grounds that the order of the District Forum is not a speaking one, cryptic and passed without application of judicious mind. The order of the District Forum is against the record as well as evidence produced by the appellant. As such the order of the District Forum is liable to be set-aside.
7. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, grounds of appeal, perused the record of the learned District Forum and heard the arguments of the counsel for the appellant First Appeal No. 1051 of 2007 5
8. There is admitted version of the appellant that the electric connection was obtained by the appellant to run Rice and General Mill i.e. for commercial purposes. As such the appellant does not fall under the definition of the 'Consumer' as per section 2 (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act.
9. The demand of the amount in dispute was raised by the respondents as power factor surcharge as per the circular No. 56/5 of 29.08.2005 vide which it was the duty of the appellant that the monthly average power factor of the plant and apparatus shall not be less that 0.90. The monthly average power factor shall mean the ratio expressed as percentage of total KWH to KVAH supplied during the month. The ratio shall be rounded up to two figures. 10 It is not the version of the appellant that the monthly average power factor of the plant and apparatus was not less than 0.90. As such the appellant was bound to pay the average power factor surcharge to the respondents. It is also not the version of the appellant that the demand in dispute is against the circular No. 56/5 dated 29.08.2005. The appellant had also not challenged the calculations of the demand of the amounts in dispute.
11. We have also perused the application form A&A as well as agreement Ex. OP-3 which was executed between the parties and it was agreed by the appellant that the appellant will pay the amount as per the rate amended by the respondents time to time. As such the appellant is liable to pay the amounts in dispute as per the circular as well as per the agreement Ex. O.P.-3 First Appeal No. 1051 of 2007 6
12. In view of the above discussion, the appeal of the appellant is meritless and the same is dismissed. Consequently the complaint of the appellant is also dismissed. No order as to costs.
13. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 14.08.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
14. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran) Presiding Judicial Member (Piare Lal Garg) Member August 26, 2013. (Jasbir Singh Gill) RK Member