State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. Punjab State Electricity Board vs Rajneesh Kumar on 19 August, 2009
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 357 of 2003
Date of institution : 24.3.2003
Date of Decision : 19.8.2009
1. Punjab State Electricity Board through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala
2. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Chatiwind Gate
Sub Division, Amritsar.
....Appellants.
Versus
Rajneesh Kumar, M/s Rajneesh Sales Corporation, Inner Circular Road, Near
Krishna Theatre, Chatiwind Gate, Amritsar.
...Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated 10.1.2003 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Amritsar.
Before:-
Mrs.Jasbir Kapoor, Presiding Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh. Vivek Sharma, Advocate
PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by PSEB(in short 'the appellants') against the order dated 10.1.2003 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar(in short the 'District Forum') by which the complaint of the appellant was allowed by the District Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was running industrial unit in a rented premises under the name of M/s Rajneesh Sales Corporation. Rent note was executed on 7.8.1999 in favour of landlord Smt. Sanjaja. In these premises, electric connection No. CW83/0405 was installed by the landlord in the name of her concern M/s S.R. Plastic. The respondent was using the same electric connection and paying all the electricity bills regularly as such he comes under the definition of 'consumer' as beneficiary user of the same. It was pleaded that on First Appeal No. 357 of 2003 2 15.3.2002, some officials of the appellants came to his premises for the purpose of inspection of the electric connection and meter and found no discrepancy but later the respondent had received notice from the appellants by which he was directed to club his electric connection with Davinder Kumar, who was running his sole partnership concern under the name and style of M/s D.K. Industry. It was pleaded that this concern was having its separate and independent electric connection bearing A/c No. CW83/0404. The appellants issued memo No. 2044 dated 3.5.2002 and imposed an amount of Rs. 19,214/- against the connection of the respondent and also imposed an amount of Rs. 15,826/- against the connection of Davinder Kumar. This amount had been claimed on account of difference of rates on change of tariff from SP to MS category by treating the electric connection of the respondent clubbed with electric connection of Davinder Kumar. Respondent had approached the appellants to withdraw the demanded amount which was related with two difference concerns and both were having separate legal entities and used by different consumers. It was pleaded that as per Sales Regulation No. 167.4 the same can be clubbed only if more than one industrial connection was running in the same premises in different names and work carried out by one proprietor. It was pleaded that the demand was illegally raised and prayed for the withdrawing of the impugned demand dated 3.5.2002. It was also prayed that the appellant be directed to issue electricity bills as per tariff applicable to the SP category and compensation of Rs. 5000/- was also demanded.
3. The appellants replied and pleaded that on 15.3.2002 the connection of the respondent was inspected by the Enforcement Staff and the respondent was present at that time. On checking it was detected that two connections i.e. one bearing A/c No. CW83/0404 and the other connection bearing A/c No. CW83/0405 were running in the same First Appeal No. 357 of 2003 3 premises and report in this regard was prepared by the Inspecting Officer at the spot and the respondent signed the report pertaining to electric connection bearing A/c No. CW83/0405. As per this report, two connections were running in the same premises and were used for same purpose by the one consumer, as such, the connections were liable to be clubbed and the appellants legally charged the higher tariff from the respondent and Davinder Kumar. It was pleaded that notice was issued to the respondent in accordance with rules and regulations of the Board and tariff was charged from SP to MS category correctly.
4. Learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record, allowed the complaint. The following is the operative part of the order:-
"10. The complaint is allowed. The impugned memos are set aside. The opposite party is directed not to treat the connection of the complainant clubbed with Account No. CW83/0405 with effect from 7/97. Consequently, the demand of the opposite party raised in memo No. 2044 dated 3/5/2002 is quashed. Any amount if deposited by the complainant on account of levy of higher tariff be refunded to him with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of payment. The opposite party is further directed not to charge MS tariff and the connection of the complainant shall be changed on the existing load capacity. This shall not preclude the opposite party from clubbing or raising demand of higher tariff if any change in situation occurs subsequently."
5. Hence, the appeal.
6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
First Appeal No. 357 of 2003 4
7. The demand in dispute of Rs. 19,214/- was raised on the basis of inspection report dated 15.3.2002 which is Ex. C-5. As per the checking report, the meter of the respondent was checked by Addl. S.E. Enforcement-II, Amritsar in the presence of respondent, who signed the checking report after admitting the same to be correct. On the basis of the checking report a memo No. 2044 dated 3.5.2002(Ex. C-6) was served upon the respondent by which a demand of Rs. 19,214/- was raised against the respondent after clubbing the connection of the respondent with the connection of Davinder Kumar, Proprietor of D.K. Industries bearing A/c No. CW83/404. Demand of Rs. 15,826/- was also raised from Davinder Kumar vide memo No. 1160 dated 19.3.2002. The meter of the respondent as well as of Davinder Kumar were clubbed by the appellant. The connections of the respondent as well as Davinder Kumar were clubbed by the P.S.E.B. on the basis of checking report dated 15.3.2002 (EX. C-5) as per circulars No. 78/95, 4/97 as well as 1497 and under Sales Regulation No. 3.5.7. and a demand of Rs. 19,214/- and Rs. 15,826/- were raised from the respondent as well as from Davinder Kumar.
8. We have gone through the circulars as well as regulations of the PSEB. Circular Nos. 78/95 & CC No. 4/97 are reproduced as under:- "CC No. 78/95
Sub.: Running of more than one connection in the same premises- SMI-268.
1. It has been observed and experienced that existing instructions contained in SMI-268 are not being meticuluously followed and new connections in the same premises are being given. Such violations of the instructions are being pointed out repeatedly by Accounts Audit as well as Technical Audit.
Avoidance of higher voltage level supply has been pointed out by the audit as a result of giving more than one connection has been given in the same premises to avoid higher tariff. Also instructions issued vide CC No. 32/90 dated 12.6.90 for avoiding circumvention of the instructions have not been very First Appeal No. 357 of 2003 5 useful in curbing the tendency for getting a new connection in a premises carved out of the existing one or by purchasing an adjoining land. In order to make the provision of clubbing and new connection in the same premises more error proof, it has been decided as under :
(i) Where any person whether or not a member of the family, partner, director etc., applies for a new connection in the same premises, this should be allowed only if;
(a) there is a physical separation and,
(b) also where the premises in question are legally
transferred, sold or leased to the new unit and
appropriate entry exists in the municipal record regarding such transfer. This implied that there should be a registered deed for lease or sale and informal agreement of family partition/lease etc. should not be accepted.
(ii) The cost of clubbing shall be borne by the Board only when after clubbing of different connections, the voltage level of the total clubbed load remains the same. Where after clubbing of loads, the consumer is required to get supply on the next higher voltage, he should bear the expenditure required for laying higher voltage lines and setting up of his own Sub-Station etc.
2. In case of existing connections, a time upto 31.12.1995 is allowed for getting the above said formalities completed beyond which tariff will be charged as per one connection alongwith the surcharge, if applicable, in case the clubbed load falls under higher voltage category.
3. It will be the primary responsibility of the Sub-Divisional Officer (AEE/AE) to ensure compliance of the above mentioned instructions and in case of failure, strict disciplinary action be taken against the delinquent officer.
4. Procedure to be followed w.r.t. para (iii) of the notification All such consumers need to be identified. For this purpose, all existing industrial consumers be served with a one month's notice to give an affidavit on non-judicial stamp papers to the effect that they are not running more than one connection in First Appeal No. 357 of 2003 6 one and the same premises. Those who do not furnish the affidavit shall be listed and the lists shall be kept on the table by consumer clerk, Revenue Accountant and SDO who shall have to record a certificate on all fresh requisitions, A&A forms that the consumer applying for extension, split or transfer is not running more than one connection in one and the same premises. Also such identified consumers shall have to pay tariff as per one connection with surcharge as mentioned in para-2 above. Similar certificate shall also be recorded on the A&A forms/requisitions of the prospective consumers.
Para (iv) of the notification It may be clarified that in case of clubbing of existing industrial consumers getting supply at 400 Volts, if the total industrial load after clubbing exceeds 100 KW, the clubbing in such cases may be allowed at 11000 Volts. In case where after clubbing the existing sanctioned loads, the total load/contract demand exceeds 5950 KW/4200 KVA for general industry and 2500 KVA for power intensive units, supply shall be given on 33/66 KV. In case the connections to be clubbed contain loads applied after 1.1.95, then the total clubbed load after sanction shall be catered at supply voltage prescribed vide CC No. 67/95.
5. The SMI-268 has been amended with reference to the above decisions and shall now read as per the notification given in Annexure-1."
"CC No. 4/97 Sub.: Running of more than one connection in the same premises.
In order to encourage the consumers to opt for clubbing of their loads and also to facilitate a smooth transition, it has been decided that all consumers may be asked to give undertaking for clubbing/conversion of two or more connections in the same premises, wherever existing by 31.1.97. Further action in various situations may be taken as under.
a) Cases where no change of voltage level is involved.
The cost of clubbing with regard to service mains, if any, shall be borne by the Board. However, consumer shall be charged higher tariff wherever applicable, from the date of First Appeal No. 357 of 2003 7 undertaking, which in any case shall have to be to given before 31.1.97.
b) Cases where change of voltage level is involved.
In cases requiring conversion of supply voltage from LT to 11 KV, Board shall carry out the conversion including erection of a new 11/0.4 KV transformer with allied equipment in the first instance and recover the conversion cost in six equal monthly instalments from the consumers.
Note Where there is a transformer exclusively feeding the consumer, this may, on the option of the consumer, be sold to him as per the provisions contained in SMI-39. In both the cases (a) & (b) above such consumers shall be brought on higher tariff, wherever applicable and any surcharge due to voltage level shall be stopped with effect from the date of undertaking.
The above relaxation shall be applicable to the cases involving voltage level upto 11 KV.
c) The consumers who do not exercise option by 31.1.97 or those who in the first instance declare that there is only one connection existing in their premises but later on are detected to be running more than one connection in the same premises, shall have to pay higher tariff and surcharge wherever applicable w.e.f. 1.1.96.
2. As period for giving the undertaking is only upto 31.1.97, the above instructions should be conveyed to all the Industrial Associations/Consumers Associations and should be given wide publicity in the Sub-Divisions and Divisional Offices.
3. Board has desired a meticuluous and strict compliance with regard to implementation of above instructions. All cases, where consumers has not given undertaking by 31.1.97, now be physically checked by Xen/AEE/AE Incharge of Sub-Division by 28.2.97 and action be taken as per para-(C) above. Chief Engineer/Operation may kindly ensure that a consolidated certificate to this effect alongwith list of such consumers should be made available to this office by 31.3.97. It is brought out here that progress of implementation of these instructions in above time bound schedule shall be monitored and any officer's laxity in this respect shall be open to strict disciplinary action."
First Appeal No. 357 of 2003 8Vide Circular No. 14/97 it was held that CC 78/95 is quite clear and need to be followed in letter and spirit. Electricity Supply Regulation No. 3.5.7 is as under:-
"3.5.7 Failure to get Connections Clubbed If a consumer fails to exercise option to get his connections clubbed within the stipulated date or declares that there is only one connection in his premises but later on it is detected that he is having more than one connection in one premises, he shall have to pay higher tariff and voltage surcharge, if applicable w.e.f. 1.1.1996.
9. From the perusal of the above circulars as well as from the Regulation No. 3.5.7 of the Board, it reveals that the connections of the consumers can only be clubbed if it is found at the time of checking that more than one connection in the same premises are running and both the connections can be inter-mixed. But the Checking Officer in his Checking Report has not mentioned that both the meters/connections were running in the same premises in different names but the industrial activities are carried out by one concern/proprietor and the connections can be inter- mixed with each other.
10. So, as per the checking report the connection in dispute cannot be clubbed with connection No. 83/0404 of Davinder Kumar.
11. The demand of Rs. 15,826/- was also raised vide memo No. 1160 dated 19.3.2002 from other connection No. CW 83/0404 i.e. in the name of Davinder Kumar, Proprietor of M/s D.K. Industries, who also filed the complaint against the said demand in the District Forum, Amritsar. The District Forum accepted the complaint of Davinder Kumar vide its order dated 10.1.2003. The P.S.E.B. filed an First Appeal No. 687 of 2003 against the said order before this learned Commission, which was also dismissed by the State Commission vide order dated 4.7.2003 and the First Appeal No. 357 of 2003 9 order of the District Forum has become final. As such, in these circumstances, this demand was also liable to be set-aside.
12. In view of the above discussion, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed except on the point of interest awarded by the District Forum. The order of the District Forum is modified to the extent that interest awarded by the District Forum @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment is reduced to 7½% per annum. Rest of the order of the District Forum is affirmed. No order as to costs.
13. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 12.8.2009 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.
(Mrs. Jasbir Kapoor)
Presiding Member
August 19, 2009. (Piare Lal Garg)
as Member