Punjab

StateCommission

FA/457/2013

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Municipal Committee, Rahon - Opp.Party(s)

Ashok Kumar Sharma

29 Jan 2015

ORDER

                                                Ist Additional Bench

PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH

 

First Appeal No. 457 of 2013

                                                           

                                                Date of institution:   22.04.2013

                                                Date of decision    :  29.01.2015

 

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its XEN, City Division (DS), Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.

2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, City Sub-Division, Pb. State Power Corp. Ltd., Rahon, District : Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.

…..Appellants/Opposite parties

                                      Versus

 

Municipal Council, Rahon, through its Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Rahon, Tehsil and District SBS Nagar, (Nawanshahar)

…..Respondent /complainant

 

First Appeal against the order dated 20.03.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.

Before:-

 

          Sh. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Presiding Member

          Sh. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellants            :         Sh. A.K. Sharma, Advocate

          For the respondent :         None

         

 

 

BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                     

                   This appeal has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties (hereinafter referred as ‘OPs’) under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) against the order dated 20.03.2013 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar (in short the 'District Forum') in CC No 184 of 06.11.2012 vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant, Municipal Council, Rahon (herein after called the “complainant”) was allowed by holding that the OPs had charged Rs. 1,22,675/- in access to the amount chargeable to the complainant.  The OPs were further directed to pay a compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- besides litigation expenses of Rs. 5000/- to the complainant.

2.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant, a constitutional body under the Municipal Act which has the object of providing basic amenities to the general public, was having an electric connection, bearing No. SL-45/0001-K, that was obtained by it from OPs for the purpose of providing efficient street lightening to the general public of Rahon.  As per the terms and conditions of the ‘agreement’ signed between OPs and the complainant on 27.10.2009, OPs agreed to supply electrical energy and to provide necessary system for the street light.  The OPs further undertook to maintain, repair and operate the street lightening system alongwith the renewal of the lamps.  It was pleaded that they were bound to provide employees to maintain and repair the street light system.  But they totally failed to provide any such employees in spite of repeated complaints made in writing by the complainant.  As a result, complainant was not able to use the full connected load of the electric connection availed by it.  It was further pleaded that due to negligence of the OPs, its electric consumption was very less than the expected consumption.  But OPs started demanding an additional amount of Rs. 4,02,191/- in the bills for the month of May to September.  On enquiry, it was disclosed by the OPs, vide their letter dated 26.09.2012, that the amount demanded was the difference between minimum consumption charges payable and actual bill paid during the year 2011.   The act of the OPs was unilateral, arbitrary and against the cannons of justice and the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law.  It was further pleaded that the OPs failed to provide the adequate maintenance services to the complainant which amounted to deficiency in services.  In the complaint, before the District Forum, the direction was sought to the OPs to rectify the bills for the months of May to September 2012 and the letter dated 26.09.2012 with regard to the demand of Rs. 4,02,191/- be quashed.  A compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- as damages besides litigation expenses of          Rs. 25,000/- was also prayed.

3.       Upon notice, the OPs filed joint written reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable and that the complainant had no locus standi to file the present complaint.  It was, however admitted that an electric connection, bearing number SL-45/001-A, was existing in the name of Municipal Council, Rahon and that OPs entered into an agreement with the complainant on 27.10.2009 but the same was subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein.  It was pleaded that under the agreement, OPs were to provide services to the complainant to maintain, repair and operate the said street light and to renew the lamps of the street light for which they deputed one permanent employee.  The bill dated 24.01.2012 amounting to Rs. 5,08,330/-, including sundry charges of Rs. 4,02,191/-, was sent to the complainant.  Infact, this bill was prepared by the Computer Billing Cell, Chandigarh on the basis of Electricity Supply Regulations, 2005 which provides as under:-

SVIII.6:        “If the total number of units consumed in the whole year (calendar year) are less than those which would have been consumed if the lamps had been lit on an average of 8 hours, per night, over the whole year, the PSPCL shall charge for the difference between the stipulated units and units actually consumed at tariff rates.  The units which would have been consumed in a calendar year shall be calculated on the basis of sanctioned load or connected load detected which ever is higher.  The annual minimum charges shall be exclusive of line maintenance and lamp renewal charges.

          Therefore, an amount of Rs. 4,02,191/- was added in the bill as per the above said regulation.  It was further pleaded that on 26.09.2012, vide memo No. 1344, OPs explained the detail of electricity bill alongwith the calculations of the same and also provided the details of actual consumption recorded during the year 2011 and the minimum charges payable as per the above said regulation.  Accordingly, this difference between the stipulated units and the actual units recorded was found to be 73527.  As the rate of per unit is Rs. 5.47 paise, the total difference charges worked out to be Rs. 4,02,191/- for the period from January 2011 to December, 2011.  Denying all other allegations, dismissal of the complaint was prayed.

4.       Parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents before the District Forum, which after going through the same allowed the complaint in aforesaid terms.            

5.       Aggrieved by this order, OPs have come up in appeal on the grounds that the learned District Forum has not appreciated that the agreement dated 27.10.2009 cannot not have the overriding effect upon Electricity Supply Regulations framed under the statute.  There cannot be an estopel against the statute Electricity Supply Instructions Manual come into force on 31.03.2011 which provides that “8 hours minimum average night consumption is to be taken for working out annual minimum charges and same cannot be ignored.  It was further submitted that in the agreement dated 27.10.2009 (Ex. C-4), average of ‘6 hours per night” was inadvertently written in place of average of ‘8 hours per night’.  Even in the regulation No. 89.6 of Sales Regulation for Supply of Electric Energy to Consumers, 1999, it is mentioned that average of “8 hours per night over the whole year” is to be taken for assessing the annual minimum charges. Learned District Forum has also not considered the reply, documents and evidence brought on record by the OPs which clearly showed that the complainant was having no case at all and that there was nothing on record to show that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Acceptance of the appeal and setting aside the impugned order was prayed.

6.       We have thoroughly gone through the pleadings of the parties, carefully perused the evidence on record and heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant at length.

7.       The admitted facts of the case are that the electric connection bearing No. SL 45/0001-K was obtained by the complainant from the OPs for street light of Municipal Council, Rahon.  An agreement dated 27.10.2009 (Ex. C-4) was signed between the complainant and the OPs in which it was stipulated that OPs shall provide and install works consisting of conductors, insulators and apparatus as may be required for the purpose of providing supply to the lamps mentioned in the list (Schedule-IV) and Board shall also install such lamps as are set forth in Schedule-I to this agreement, and fittings, as required by consumer, provided such lamps and fittings are procured and provided by the consumer to the Board at his own cost. 

8.       The specific case of the complainant is that due to improper maintenance of the street light system, it could not utilise the full sanctioned load of its connection, due to which, its annual consumption fell below the minimum level as stipulated in the agreement.  OPs raised the demand of Rs. 4,02,191/- vide their letter dated 26.09.2012 on the ground that the annual minimum charges are to be recovered as per 8 hours utilisation of the street light load per night for whole of the year.  It is further the case of the complainant that if the minimum charges are to be worked out, it should be worked out on the basis of 6 hours consumption per night as provided under the agreement and not on 8 hours basis as claimed by the OPs.

9.       The learned District Forum has observed that the OPs have charged annual minimum consumption on the basis of  8 hours consumption per night instead of 6 hours as mentioned in the agreement (Ex. C-4) and accordingly held that the OPs have charged 51,100 units in excess than admissible under agreement and same was amounted to Rs. 1,22,675/- .  The specific case of the OPs is that even though in the agreement, it is stipulated that 6 hours per night consumption is to be taken to assess the annual minimum charges but the same has been inadvertently mentioned in the agreement instead of 8 hours as mentioned in the Electricity Supply Instructions Manual SVIII.6, Similarly in the regulation No. 89.6 of the Sales Regulation for supply of Electrical Energy to the Consumers 1999, it is mentioned that energy of 8 hours per night is to be taken over the whole year.  Therefore, the average consumption is to be worked out on the basis of Regulations framed under the Electricity Act and not on the basis of the agreement reached between the parties.  We are of the considered view that Regulation 89.6 of the Sales Regulation of Electricity Supply of Energy 1999 was already existing at the time of release of the connection to the complainant as well as signing of the street light agreement. There was clear cut provision of taking average of 8 hours consumption per night over the whole year for assessing the annual minimum charges. In case of variation between the provision made in the two documents, the statutory regulation will have overriding effect and the agreement signed in violation of the same cannot be sustained.  Thus the finding of the learned District Forum with regard to the reduction of the annual minimum charges is not sustainable.

10.     So far as the issue of deficiency in service in maintaining the street light system as per the agreement is concerned, the complainant has proved on record numerous letters and communication (Ex. C-5 to Ex. C-16) showing the street light system was not being maintained by OPs due to which a number of street light points remained defective.  Complainant repeatedly requested OPs for the setting right these defective light points.  The repeated requests made by the complainant shows that the system was not properly maintained by the OPs.  Evidently when number of street light points remained defective, the consumption will definitely fall even below minimum consumption level.  The OPs have failed to respond to any of these communications which amounted to deficiency in service.  Thus the amount of Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the District Forum on account of deficiency in service alongwith litigation expenses of Rs. 5000/- are upheld. 

11.               In view of the above findings, the impugned order of the District Forum is modified to the extent that the direction issued to withdraw the excess amount of Rs. 1,22,675/- is set-aside.  No order as to costs.      

12.               The appellants have deposited an amount of Rs.12,500/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. The amount of Rs. 12,500/- alongwith interest, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent/complainant within 45 days from the receipt of copy of the order.

13.               The arguments in this appeal were heard on 16.01.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

 

                                                                                                                                                   (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)

                                                                                                                                                      PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

                                                                              (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM)

                                                                MEMBER

 

 

January 29^th, 2015

Rupinder