Complainant M/S.Komal Straw Board and Mill Board Industry, through its partner Sh.Sarowar Kumar, through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that opposite parties be directed to withdraw memo no.951 dated 22.08.2016 and withdraw illegal threat to recover the amount of Rs.1,58,307/- from him under the threat of disconnection of his electricity connection. Opposite parties be further directed to pay litigation expenses and compensation for harassment and mental agony, in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he installed M/s.Komal Straw Board and Mill Board Industry at village and Post Office Hayat Nagar for earning his livelihood and for self employment.  He installed electric meter bearing Account No.3000185752 in the abovesaid Mill and he continue consume the electricity from the abovesaid account and continuing paying the electricity bills and never defaulted in paying the electricity charges. The opposite party issued Memo No.8283/8433/S.O./PRC/LD-38 dated 29.06.2001 regarding “Timing of Evening Peak Load Hours” restriction permanently w.e.f. 10.07.2001 onwards and through the memo the opposite party gave time to stop the Mill in the month of April and May from 7.00 PM to 10:00 PM and accordingly he continues to stop the mill and never disobeyed the instructions of the opposite parties. The opposite parties issued memo no.951 dated 22.08.2016 to him stating therein that data of his meter was downloaded and according to his data, he has violated the instructions of the opposite parties from 1.04.2016 to 11.04.2016, 15.04.2016 to 22.04.2016, 25.04.2016 to 29.04.2016, 01.05.2016 and 03.05.2016 and 05.05.2016 as the opposite parties alleged that they issued new PR Circular No.01/2015 and demanded amount of Rs.1,58,307/- from him through the memo. It was next pleaded that this memo issued by the opposite parties is illegal, null and void. He requested the opposite parties to withdraw Memo and withdraw their illegal threats to recover the amount of Rs.1,58,307/- from him under the threat of disconnection of the electric connection, but the opposite party refused to admit his claim. Hence this complaint.

3.       Notice of the complaint was served upon the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable in the present form and complainant had not come to the court with clean hands and concealed the material facts from this Ld. Forum; the provisions of consumers protection act are not available to the complainant/Industry as the Electricity facility being used was for commercial purpose and involved in commercial activity. On merits, it was submitted that the consumer Industry had made violations of the peak load hours restrictions imposed on the consumers/complainant and as per checking/downloading of data of consumer/Mill on 10.5.206 by Er.SE/Sr Xen (EA & MMTS) Batala alongwith its staff and as per recording of data of complainant/industry by the said MMTS Batala who  had found that violations were made by complainant/industry during imposed in view and in accordance to Power Regulation Circular P.R.Circular No.01/2015 dated 31.3.2015 which was in force April-May on the day of downloading of data of complainant Industry on 10.5.2016 thus accordingly penalized and advised to charge Rs.1,58,307/-  and had informed deft no.3 vide memo mno.371 dated 16.5.2016 to charge for these non observance of peak load hours restrictions imposed on them. The said recovery is legal, valid as per provisions, rules, instructions and PR circulars of the Corp applicable on the complainant. All other averments made in complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.       Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 along with other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence.  

5.       Sh.A.S.Nagra S.D.O for the opposite parties tendered into evidence his own affidavit  Ex.OP-1 alongwith other documents Ex.P-2 to Ex.OP-4 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 along with the incidental scope of adverse inference that may be judicially (though discretionarily & judiciously) drawn on account of some evidentiary documents that have been somehow omitted to be produced, in order to statutorily adjudicate the inter-se dispute (under the C P Act’ 1986) prompting the present complaint. Admittedly, the complainant had been the holder of one Electric Connection # 3000185752 duly installed at its Business premises to run the SSI Unit in order to earn its partners’ livelihood through self-employment and thus it has been the statutory ‘consumer’ under the applicable C P Act, 1986 and has been paying his consumption Bills regularly & well in time. And, in addition the complainant has also been regularly observing ‘Non-Usage Cut-Period’ restriction Switch-off timings from 07:00 PM to 10:00 PM during the months of April and May every year with effect from 10.07.2001, in compliance to the restrictive terms of the OP Corporation’s Memo No. 8283/8433/SO/ PRC/LD-38 dated 29.06.2001. However, the above restrictive timings, though unceremoniously and without any pre-pro prior ‘notice’, were changed by the OP Corporation vide its Circular # 01/2015 and subsequently issued the Demand Memo # 951 dated 22.08.2016 for Rs.1,58,307/- upon the complainant as fine/additional charges coupled with threats of ‘disconnection’ for the alleged violation of the restrictive timings giving prompt to the present consumer complaint. The complainant has satisfactorily/sufficiently proved his allegations vide his depositions (Affidavit Ex.C1) and accompanying impugned Bill Copy (Ex.C1) along with the copy of the Demand Memo # 951 (Ex.C2), Restrictive Memo of 29.06.2001 (Ex.C3), Restrictive Notice (Ex.C4) of 08.02.2002 and payment Receipt (Ex.C5) for Rs.52,800/- i.e., 1/3 rd of the impugned Sum paid to the OP Corporation in compliance to the forum’s interim orders of 29.08.2016.  

7.       The OP Corporation has stated in its defense vide its written statement (and as also deposed vide its affidavit Ex.OP1) that the complainant had committed violations of duly noticed/served restrictive timings as exhibited vide Ex.OP2 Memo # 371 of 16.05.2016 and Ex.OP3 Memo # 951 of 22.08.2016 both for Rs.1,58,307/- & finally Ex.OP4 Circular 01/2015 exhibiting the fresh/changed restrictions etc. Somehow, the OP Corporation has omitted to produce any evidence and/or details of the service/dispatch of the requisite pre-notice to the complainant that has also been mandatory as per the over-printed instructions on the restrictive memo, itself; and thus it shall not be legally presumed to have been served.

8.       We have intently examined the (Ex.C3) Restrictive Memo & the (Ex.OP4) Restrictive Circular etc that itself high-lights the mandatory pre-intimation provisionary instructions duly incorporated (on the documents itself) as at #: i) “-page-2- PR Circular NO. 12/2001.  It is requested to ensure that Peak Load Hours timings are enforced as per above schedule. At present, Peak Load Hours Restrictions are applicable on Large Supply consumers only and the above change may be got noted from all concerned consumers well in time. Further, the above timings may be permanently displayed at all the Complaint Centers, Grid Sub-Stations and Operation Sub Divisions/ Divisions.” And, ii) “These, Peak Load Hours Restrictions shall be applicable on Large Supply consumers only and the above charges may be got noted from all the concerned consumers well in time. Further, the above timings may be permanently displayed at all complaint centers, Grid Sub Stations and Op. Sub Divisions/ Divisions etc.”  However, we find that the OP Corporation has produced no such documentary or even any other collateral evidence to prove the compliance of the explicit ‘pre-notice’ instructions of the referenced instructions etc and thus they are not legally entitled to draw the impugned Demand Memo # 951 of 22.08.2016 (Ex.OP3) for a sum of Rs.1,58,307/-. We also find that the OP Corpn through its callous acts have indeed bruised/ infringed the consumer rights of the present complainant and that rakes it up to an adverse statutory award under the applicable Act.

9.       In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the opposite party corporation to withdraw the impugned Demand Memo (Ex.C2/Ex.OP3) to the tune of Rs.1,58,307/- (i.e., other than current consumption charges) and also to refund the deposited amount of (Ex.C5) Rs,52,800/-  to the present complainant besides to pay him a sum of Rs.5,000/- as cost and compensation within 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 orders till actual payment. The complainant shall be liable to pay the applicable consumption charges only from the date of the last paid Bill onwards and the opposite party Service Providers are also directed to draw/raise only the appropriate Bills comprising of applicable consumption charges only.

10.      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)

DEC. 26, 2016                                                      Member.

*MK*