STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(RBT NO.232 OF 2010 IN APPEAL  NO.2595 OF 2003)

                                                          Date of Institution : 11.11.2003

                                                          Date of Decision  : 11.10.2010.

1.                 Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its Sub Divisional Officer, Operation, Sub Division, Mustafabad, Jagadhri, District Yamunanagar.

2.                 Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its Executive Engineer, Operation, Sub Division, Jagadhri, District Yamunanagar.

3.                 Utter Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through its Chairman, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.

……Appellants

V e r s u s

M/s Sada Ram Som Nath, Rice Mill, V. Chappar (Mustafabad) Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamunanagar, through its Partner Sh. Somnath son of Sh. Sada Ram.

              ....Respondent.

BEFORE:          MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

                    SH. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:          None for the Appellants.

                    Sh. R.C. Kapoor, Advocate for Respondent.

PER JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER.

1.                 This is an appeal received by transfer from the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against the order dated 22.9.2003 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jagadhri (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which the complaint filed by M/s Sada Ram Som Nath, respondent was accepted and the appellants were directed to delete the amount of Rs.3,91,369/- added in the bill No.63 dated 21.12.2001 and also to refund the amount, if any, deposited by the complainant towards this amount  alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment, financial loss and costs of litigation.

2.                 The complainant was running a rice Sheller at village Chappar, District Yamuna Nagar and had obtained an electric connection from the appellants.  The business of the rice Sheller was a seasonal one starting from October every year and ending as per quantity of paddy shelling.  In the year 2001, the work ended in the month of February  and the complainant moved an application (Annexure C-2) dated 2.2.2001 requesting the OP/appellant for temporary disconnection of electricity w.e.f 19.2.2001 to 1.10.2001. The case of the complainant/respondent is that even in spite of application and deposit of Minimum Monthly Charges (in short MMC) for March 2001, the temporary disconnection was not effected by the OPs/appellants due to malafide intention of recovering the MMC for the succeeding months also. The season of paddy shelling started in the month of October 2001 but they were not given electricity connection and rather a bill dated 21.12.2001 was issued, copy of which is Annexure C-1 demanding an additional amount of Rs.3,91,369/- on account of MMC for the period during which the rice mill remained closed.  Subsequently, the electric connection was permanently disconnected on 11.5.2001 and thereafter the minimum monthly charges were not payable. It was alleged that firstly by not effecting the temporary disconnection and thereafter by not giving the connection and rather effecting permanent disconnection of the electric connection has caused him loss of business for which a compensation of Rs.1 lac was also demanded.  The complainant, therefore, prayed that an amount of Rs.3,91,369/- illegally added in the bill be deleted.

3.                 A notice of the complaint was given to the OPs/appellants. They admitted that the complainant was their consumer having an electric connection for running a rice mill.  It was admitted that on 2.2.2001 the complainant applied for temporary disconnection w.e.f. 19.2.2001 to 1.10.2001. According to them, the temporary disconnection could not be effected in view of the provisions of circular No.14 of 1993 because the complainant was required to apply for temporary disconnection (i.e. TDCO) one month prior to the date of TDCO.  Secondly, the temporary disconnection could be allowed only for six months by the competent authority but in the present case it was for a period of more than 6 months. The complainant was also alleged to be a defaulter having not paid about Rs.4 lacs regarding which an appeal was pending before the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Chandigarh. The request dated 2.2.2001 made by the complainant was forwarded to the Superintending Engineer of the appellant but by that time his connection had been permanently disconnected in May 2001 on the ground of non payment of the current bills.  The complainant was said to be habitual litigant and not willing to make the payment of Nigam according to MMC.  It was alleged that during the season of 2001-02, they did not purchase any paddy and were not willing to run the factory as most of the paddy was purchased by the State Govt.  The complainant firm was also running another Sheller namely Vanila Rice Mills and whatever work of paddy shelling was there, it was done in the said mill. It was, therefore, denied if the complainant suffered any losses or if the amount of Rs.3,91,369/- was not due from him. 

4.                 Both the parties were given opportunity to lead evidence in support of their contentions. After hearing the arguments of the ld. Counsel for the parties and perusing the record the complaint was allowed as per the impugned order dated 22.9.2003 which has been challenged by the OP/appellant through this appeal.

5.                 The appeal was initially filed before the Hon’ble Haryana State Commission and was transferred to this Commission vide orders dated 26.5.2010 of the Hon’ble National Commission.

6.                 Notice of the receipt of the appeal upon transfer from the Hon’ble Haryana State Commission was issued to the parties. The notice was served on appellant No.2 but the notices issued to appellants No.1 & 3 were not received back.  Initially when the case was called on 16.9.2010, none appeared for the appellants, however, subsequently Shri Rahul Sharma, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants and filed his Vakalatnama.  He was informed that the appeal has been adjourned to 7.10.2010 for arguments.

7.                 On 7.10.2010 when the case was called, Shri R.C. Kapoor, Advocate appeared for the respondent, but none appeared for the appellants.  We have heard the arguments of the ld. Counsel for the respondent and have perused the record, though we did not get any assistance from the appellants in this respect.  The counsel engaged by them did not deem it necessary to put in appearance on the adjourned date or to argue the appeal.

8.                 The ld. Counsel for the respondent has argued that since the request for temporary disconnection was made on 2.2.2001 vide letter (Annexure C-2), the OPs were duty bound to effect the TDCO w.e.f. 19.2.2001 and to reconnect it w.e.f. 1.10.2001. It is argued that the OPs/appellants by not acceding to his request were guilty of deficiency in service and they were entitled to minimum monthly charges only for March 2001 and not thereafter. It is contended that the OPs/appellants had been charging minimum monthly charges till May 2001 when the connection was permanently disconnected, though wrongly, which again was a deficiency in service.  On the other hand, the case of the appellant is that in view of sales Circular No.14 of 1993, copy of which is Annexure R-2, there were three requirements on satisfaction of which the temporary disconnection could be made.  The first is that the application for disconnection should be made at least one month before the date on which the TDCO is requested.  Secondly, the disconnection should be for a period of six months and if it is beyond that, then it depends upon the higher officers to allow or not to allow the same.  We are not considering the third requirement that the consumer should not be a defaulter of the Board because the previous charges levied on the complainant had been set aside by the District Forum in a separate complaint against which the appeal filed by the appellants was pending.  When two out of three conditions were not met, the OPs/appellants were not bound to accept the request for disconnection.  The complainant had not applied at least one month before the date of disconnection because the application Annexure C-2 was moved  on 2.2.2001 and the TDCO was requested w.e.f. 19.2.2001 as per Annexure C-2 and the same, therefore, could not have been effected.  The ld. Counsel for the respondent has argued that even if the time given by the complainant/respondent was less than one month, the OPs should have disconnected the connection after one month of the application.  This argument cannot succeed because the OPs did not consider it proper to substitute the date of temporary disconnection from their own unless it was so specified by the complainant.  In fact in the application (Annexure C-2), the complainant had given a specific date i.e. 19.2.2001 for TDCO and had not given this discretion to the OPs to disconnect the electric supply either after one month from the date of application or from any subsequent date after 19.2.2001 due to which the OPs/appellants did use their discretion to change the date of disconnection. 

9.                 The complainant/respondent had wanted the disconnection for the period from 19.2.2001 to 1.10.2001.  It exceeded the period of six months.  As per Sales Circular NO.14 of 1993, the request of TDCO beyond a period of six months is to be referred by the respective SEs to CEs/OP concerned for decision and the CE (OP) may allow temporary disconnection for a maximum continuous period of 12 months on the merits of each case.  According to the respondent he had already paid minimum monthly charges for March 2001 also.  However, since the request for temporary disconnection had been forwarded to the Chief Engineer, the complainant/respondent was liable to pay the charges for the month of April 2001 also. It is not the case of the complainant if he paid any charges for consumption of electricity during the month of April 2001. As per sales circular No.14 of 1993, it cannot be said that the complainant was not liable to pay any charges for April 2001 and since he had not paid any, the permanent disconnection in May 2001 was fully justified on account of non payment of charges for April 2001.

10.             The complainant moved an application (Annexure R-1) on 29.5.2001 alleging that they would receive paddy in July 2001 and they were preparing to run the mill by that date.  No request was made in Annexure R-1 for reconnection.  Moreover, by that date the electric connection had been permanently disconnected and, therefore, a different procedure was to be adopted by the complainant for restoring the electric supply which they did not adopt.  There was, therefore, no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs if the reconnection was not given to the complainant/respondent in July 2001 or thereafter because it was never asked for/applied for.

11.             The contention of the OPs is that the complainant had not paid some other charges also regarding which they had earlier filed a complaint. This contention is, however, without any merit because the demand of said charges had been set aside by the ld. District Forum against which the appellants had filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Haryana State Commission which was transferred to this Commission. The said appeal has already been decided vide orders dated 24.8.2007.  The third ground, the complainant being in arrears, was not available to the OPs/appellants as the demand of the said amount had been quashed by the learned District Forum.

12.             In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the entire problem was created by the complainant himself by not making a proper request to the OPs/appellants in accordance with the Sales Circular No.14 of 1993. As discussed above, the request made by the complainant for temporary disconnection could not have been accepted and the complainant/respondent having not paid subsequent bills after March 2001, the permanent disconnection made by the appellant was also justified.  The OPs/appellants are, therefore, entitled to the amount in question as charges till the permanent disconnection of electricity was made.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs/appellants and the complaint was liable to have been dismissed.

13.             We, therefore, accept the appeal, set aside the order dated 22.9.2003 passed by the ld. District Forum and dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent.

          Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

11^th October, 2010.

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

hg

STATE COMMISSION

(RBT NO.232 OF 2010 IN APPEAL  NO.2595 OF 2003)

Argued by:          None for the Appellants.

                    Sh. R.C. Kapoor, Advocate for Respondent.

Dated the 11^th day of October, 2010.

ORDER

                    Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, this appeal filed by the OPs has been accepted.

            (JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL)                                            (NEENA SAHDHU)

                            MEMBER                                                                                   MEMBER