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.99 dated 17.01.2017 and withdraw illegal threat to recover the amount of Rs.14,93,574/- 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 is continuously consuming the electricity from the abovesaid account and continuously 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 May,2016 from 7.00 PM to 10:00 PM and in the months of June 2016 and July 2016 from 7.30 P.M. to 10.30 PM and accordingly he continues to stop the mill and never disobeyed the instructions of the opposite parties. The opposite parties issued memo no.99 dated 17.01.2017 which was received on 30.01.2017 by him and alleged in the Memo that data of the meter was downloaded on 18.07.2016 and according to his data, he has violated the instructions of the opposite parties from 11.05.2016 to 15.07.2016 as the opposite parties alleged that they issued new PR Circular No.01/2015 and demanded amount of Rs.14,93,574/- from him through memo bearing no.99 dated 17.01.2017 issued by the opposite parties is illegal, null and void. The opposite parties never conveyed any alleged Circular PR Circular No.01/2015 to him in which allegedly change of time of Peak Load and if there is any alleged circular i.e. illegal, null and void and not binding upon his rights. He requested the opposite parties to withdraw Memo and withdraw their illegal threats to recover the amount of Rs.14,93,574/- 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 and complaint is not properly signed and verified according to law. On merits, it was submitted that complainant got installed electricity in his industry vide account No.3000185752 and complainant is continuously consuming the electricity from the said connection. The complainant was allowed peak load exemption utpo 25.10.2014 and as per memo vide Endorsement No.5978/80 dated 26.8.2014 the complainant was allowed only normal peak load exemption upto 25.10.2014 and after that complainant was allowed only normal peak load exemption 400 KW on regular basis. The complainant was found violating the peak load exemptions w.e.f. 11.5.2016 to 15.7.2016. Actually Additional Superintending Engineer, M.M.T.S.(Mobile Meter Testing Service)Balata checked the connection/meter of complainant on 18.7.2016 and found the complainant violating the Peak Load Exemption load exemption which was withdrawn vide letter because during peak load period complainant was not allowed to use the electricity in his industry upto 400 K.W. and Additional Superintending Engineer, M.M.T.S. Batala sent his report of action to A.E.E./A.E. (Operation) AEE (Com) City Gurdaspur vide Memo No.685 dated 22.8.2016 by way of which the complainant has been made responsible to make payment of an amount of Rs.14,93,574/- according to the rules of PSPCLtd. For using electricity un-authorizedly during period of peak load i.e. restricted period. They further submitted that opposite parties issued Memo No.99 dated 17.1.2017 which was received by the complainant and in the alleged data of the complainant was downloaded on 18.7.2016 and according to the data the complainant has violated the instructions of the opposite parties from 11.05.2016 to 15.07.2016 and as per PR Circular No.01/2015 the complainant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.14,93,574/- which has been demanded through Memo No.99 dated 17.01.2017 and said demand is legal and void according to the rules and circulars. All other averments made in complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4. Sh.Sarowar Kumar complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW1 along with other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed his evidence.

5. Sh.Dilbag Singh S.D.O for the opposite parties tendered into evidence his own affidavit.

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 Ex.C4. However, the above restrictive timings, though unceremoniously and without any pre-pro prior ‘notice’, were changed by the OP Corporation and subsequently issued the Demand Memo # 99 dated 17.01.2017 for Rs 14,93,574/- Ex.C1 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 deposition (Affidavit Ex.Cw1) and accompanying impugned Memo Copy (Ex.C1) along with the copy of the Print-out Memo # 685 (Ex.C2), Restrictive Memo of 07.11.2016 (Ex.C3), Restrictive Notice (Ex.C4) of 29.06.2001 and others Ex.C5 to Ex.C9 as issued by the OP Corporation during the intervening period.

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 has not been a consumer under the Act as it has been a commercial purpose consumer but has not proposed any evidence to substantiate its pleaded assertion whereas the complainant has duly pleaded in its complaint as of working for livelihood through self employment hence the same stood duly admitted. Further, the complainant had allegedly committed violations of duly noticed/ served restrictive timings. 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 Restrictive Memo 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 changes 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 changes 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 # 99 of 17.01.2017 Ex.C1 for a sum of Rs 14,93,574/-. We also find that the OP Corporation 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.C1/Ex.C7) to the tune of Rs.14,93,574/- (i.e., other than current consumption charges) and also to appropriate the deposited amount, if any, against the actual consumption with effect from the date of the last paid Bill, onwards; favoring the present complainant besides to pay him a sum of Rs.10,000/- 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)

September 13, 2017 Member.

*MK*