Complainant M/s.Guru Teg Bahadur Rice Mill Village Sarupwali through its Proprietor Hardev Singh has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs.18,00,000/-. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment alongwith Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses to him, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he is Sole Proprietorship concern and doing the business of rice Sheller at village  Sarupwali, Tehsil Batala, Distt.Gurdaspur. He is a consumer of the opposite parties and having the electric connection bearing No.G-21LS01-00004. The opposite party had made a outstanding against him a sum of Rs.14,50,584/- as per letter dated 3.10.2017 and the actual amount which was due and payable was Rs.3,88,037/- at the time when the connection was disconnected and remaining amount was imposed on account of minimum charges and other miscellaneous charges and he wants to run the Sheller for shelling the paddy for the paddy season of 2017 and moved an application to the opposite parties for restoring the electric connection and with the proposal that he is ready to deposit 25% of the total outstanding in advance and remaining amount in the form of 15 equal installments but the opposite parties agreed to restore the connection on the condition to deposit 40% of the total outstanding at first instance and remaining 60% outstanding in four equal monthly installments after restoration of the connection and for the said purpose of four installments to deposit the post dated cheques and letter to this respect was issued to the Patiala Office of the opposite parties to all the concerned offices of the opposite parties vide letter dated 11.10.2017 vide Memo No.1015/GEN/GSP/VOL-4 dated 11.10.2017 and thereafter the opposite party no.2 issued the letter in this respect to him in the  third week of October, 2017 and deliberately not put any number and date on the said letter just to cover up the deficiency and delay on their part and after getting this letter the complainant immediately deposited the amount of Rs.1200/- on 27.10.2017 and then the 40% amount i.e. Rs.5,80,234/- on 28.10.2017 as he wants immediate connection as the season was running on and he is to purchase the paddy for his rice Sheller only after restoring the electricity connection from the opposite parties as the paddy is available in the market for the purchase only in the month of October and November and thereafter the paddy is not available in the market for purchase and after November there is no useful purpose for the opposite parties to restore the connection.  Due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties , he suffered the financial loss of Rs.18.00-19.00 lacs which he was to surely earn after Shelling the paddy and this loss is suffered by him only due to lack and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties from restoring the connection in time and further in the month of January, 2018 the official of the opposite parties have come to restore the connection but at that time there was no use of connection as there was no paddy available in the market for purchasing.  He also requested the opposite parties not to present the cheques as the cheques to be encashed only after running of the business of the Sheller but the opposite parties are now unnecessarily harassing him. He visited several times to the office of the opposite parties but all in vain. Hence this complaint.

3.           Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has filed the false and frivolous complaint with the intention to harass the opposite parties; the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and  concealed the material facts from this Ld.Forum; the present complaint is not maintainable and the complaint of the complainant is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it was submitted that the opposite party permanently disconnect the electric connection of the complainant on 18.4.2016 as the unpaid outstanding amount of Rs.5,84,757/- was due against the complainant and after deducting the security amount of the complainant it comes to Rs.3,88,037/-. The complainant made an application on 3.10.2017 for the restoration of the connection in dispute hence the opposite party no.2 moved application to the XEN Sub Urban Batala on the same day for their approval and the XEN office send the same to SE Office Gurdaspur on the same day. The Supdt. Engineer office Gurdaspur sent the request of the complainant for the restoration of the connection in dispute to the Engineer in Chief commercial Patiala on 6.10.2017. The approval granted by the Engineer in Chief on 11.10.2017 with the direction to the complainant to deposit the amount mentioned in the memo no.8098 dated 30.10.2017 i.e. Rs.14,50,584/-. After that the opposite party intimated the complainant and the complainant deposited the 40% of the total amount on 26.10.2017 i.e. Rs.5,80,234/- and also moved application for the reconnection of the connection in dispute on 27.10.2017 uptill the first week of January 2018. The alleged Rice Sheller of the complainant is in dilapidated condition and the complainant deliberately delayed the restoration for the connection in dispute with the intention to drag the opposite parties in the litigation and with the intention to extract money from the opposite parties. When the employees of the opposite parties came to know about the malafide intention of the complainant, they visited the spot for the reconnection, but the premises always found locked. The sanctioned load of the complainant is 124.423 KW. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. All other averments made in the complaint have been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.       Sh.Hardev Singh Proprietor of M/s.Guru Tej Bahadur Rice Mill has tendered into evidence  his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A, alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13 and closed the evidence.

5.       Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Yousaf Masih, S.D.O. Ex.OP-1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-7 and closed the evidence.

6.      We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides in the back drop of the legally applicable merit of the supporting evidence/ document(s) as produced by the litigating parties in order to statutorily resolve the inter-se dispute (in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986) prompting the present complaint. We observe that the complainant (a sole-proprietorship firm) engaged in rice-shelling business had been quite a long time consumer of the opposite party service providers/corporation being the valid beneficiary of Electric Connection # G-21LS01-00004. Further, the unit’s electric supply was withdrawn/ disconnected by the OP2 Sub Division on 18.04.2016 on account of non-payment accruals amounting to Rs.5,84,757/- netted off to Rs.3,88,037/- by security appropriation. The complainant firm was somehow inclined to run its sheller-unit with the onset of paddy-harvesting season in September’ 2017 and upon query from the OP Corporation were advised of Rs.14,50,584/- as restoration charges having volumanized from Rs.3,88,037/- (within a year) with the application of hefty penalty and other charges. The OP Corporation vide its consent dated 11.10.2017 agreed to restore the disconnected electric supply subject to deposit of 40% of outstanding-arrears along with four nos. of monthly-equated post-dated cheques for the balance outstanding. The complainant firm somehow deposited on 26.10.2017 a sum of Rs. 5,80,234/- (i.e., 40% of restoration charges) along with Rs.1,200/- as re-connection fee but the OP2 Sub Division did not restore the electric-supply to the complainant firm throughout that paddy-harvesting season on one pretext or the other causing substantial financial-loss to the firm and acute mental agony and harassment to its proprietor and thus prompted the present complaint.    

7.       The complainant firm has satisfactorily proved its allegation contented complaint vides its proprietor’s deposition (affidavit Ex.Cw-1/A) and evidentiary documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13. The competent authority at the OP1 Head Office has duly approved/sanctioned (Ex.C2) the restoration of disconnected electric-supply upon receipt of 40% of restoration accruals and only then to receive the balance amount (Ex.C3) afterwards and that too in four monthly installments. Here, the OP Corporation is not entitled to keep the deposited 40% amount and/or to receive the balance outstanding since the electric supply was never restored to the complainant. The OP’s pleas that the Sheller Plant Machinery has been in a depleted and non-functional condition and the complainant firm had itself requested for non-release of the power supply are not tenable in the absence of any cogent evidence as was desired to be produced by them (the OPs). The complainant firm is thus also entitled to get back the sans-date/ post-dated cheques deposited with the OP Corporation.

8.       However, the OP service providers have somehow admitted the principal facts and have deposed its other contentions (Affidavit Ex.OP1) and have also produced evidence (Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP7) in support of their bald rebuttals that however fail to prove/establish the main pleading of non-functional and depleted Plant and Machinery. We are certainly not convinced as to how the electric supply was not restored in spite of having received/accepted the requisitioned amount of restoration charges. It not only depicts ‘deficiency in service’ on the part of the OP service providers but also indicates presence of ‘malafide’ in the dealings at the end of their officials who have been unnecessarily deferring the requisite ‘restoration’ of electric supply so as to run the Sheller Unit during the Harvesting of Paddy Season peak from October to December in the year 2017. 

9.       We are of the considered opinion that the opposite party service providers/corporation have acted in an arbitrary and unauthorized illegal manner in the present case and thus the present complainant firm shall not be liable to pay any restoration charges in the absence of ‘non-restoration’ of supply to them in spite of the OP2 having duly received accepted the 40% restoration charges by the complainant. Moreover, we find that the present impugned demands as put forth upon the complainant for payment of the levied balance charges by the opposite party corporation has not been a matter of routine and also not in accordance with the legally accrued amounts as per their own Sales & Distribution of Electricity Rules and Regulations and the details were neither put forth in the impugned demand nor any pre-notice was served, as requisite. Finally, the non-restoration of the electric supply to the complainant firm upon receipt of the deposited restoration charges during the paddy shelling season disentitles the OP Corporation to law-fully recover/accept any related Minimum charges( MMC) from the date of filing of this complaint till the date of order. Even, the Hon’ble West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata in case titled as C.E.S.C. Limited & Ors Versus Rekha Maity  & Anr has granted only 24 hours to restore the electricity after acceptance of deposit of the restoration charges. However, here the OP (on the job concerned) officials seemingly intentionally did not restore the ‘supply’ to the complainant firm on flimsy grounds of nonfunctional and depleted Plant & Machinery sans any cogent evidence and have thus caused substantial financial loss to the complainant and a part of that may get shifted to the OP corporation through the present legal apportionment under determination. It shall however be the discretional prerogative of the OP Corporation to recover the financial aspects of the statutory award from its delinquent employees as misconduct penalty.

10.     In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and ORDER the opposite party # 2 (the AEE) to recall and set-aside the impugned Restoration Charges (vide Ex C3 dated 3.10.2017) for Rs.14,50,584/- and instead raise an appropriately detailed demand of admitted arrears of Rs.3,88,037/- only upon the complainant firm in conformity with the applicable ‘Sales & Distribution Regulations’ and to refund the full deposited amount of Rs.5,80,234/- net of the arrears of Rs. 3,88,037/- besides to pay him (proprietor of the complainant firm) an amount of Rs.25,000/- as cost and compensation (for the harassment and financial expense caused by the instant forced upon litigation) within a period of 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of the deposits till actually paid.

11.      Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

                                                                        (Naveen Puri)

                                                                             President

ANNOUNCED:                                           (Jagdeep Kaur)

July 11, 2018.                                                         Member

*MK*