Complaint No: 149 of 2019.

     Date of Institution: 01.05.2019.

             Date of order: 02.11.2023.

Shri Guru Teg Bahadur Ice Factory, Village Ghuman, Tehsil Batala District Gurdaspur, through its proprietor Sh. Germanjit Singh Son of Sh. Nirmal Singh, resident of Village Ghuman, Tehsil Batala District Gurdaspur.

                                                                                                                                                                             .....Complainant.

           VERSUS

1.       Punjab State Power Corporation, The Mall, Patiala, through its Chief Managing Director. 147001

2.       Punjab State Power Corporation, Sub-Division Qadian, Tehsil Batala District Gurdaspur, through its XEN. 143516

3.       Punjab State Power Corporation, Sub-Division Ghuman, Tehsil Batala District Gurdaspur, through its S.D.O. 143514

                                                                                                                                           .....Opposite parties.                                                                               Complaint Under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the complainant: Sh.Uttam Raj Sharma, Advocate.

              For the opposite parties: Sh.B.S.Malhi, Advocate.

Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.

ORDER

Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.

          Germanjit Singh, Complainant, (Proprietor of Shri Guru Teg Bahadur Ice Factory), (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against P.S.P.C.Ltd. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).

2.       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant Germanjit Singh installed Ice Factory under the name and style of M/s. Shri Guru Teg Bahadur Ice Factory for earning livelihood for himself as well as his family members. It was pleaded that the OP’s installed CT PT Unit in the premises of Ice factory of complainant through which Ice factory of the complainant receive electricity. One meter is also installed in the said CT PT Unit. The guarantee of said CT PT Units was upto June, 2018, but unfortunately it became out of order in March, 2018. It was further pleaded that thereafter he approached the OP’s and requested them to replace the CT PT Unit with new one. It was further alleged that for this purpose, the OP’s demanded Rs.72,000/- from him, but as per complainant the said CT PT Unit was under the guarantee till June, 2018. It was further alleged that due to non-installation of CT PT Unit in the Ice Factory premises, he suffered huge financial loss and at last he was compelled to give Rs.72,000/- to the OP’s, illegally demanded by them for the installation of new CT PT Unit. It was further pleaded that act of the OP’s in which they have wrongly charged Rs.72,000/- for the installation of new CT PT Unit is illegal, null and void, against the law and instructions and according to law, as the OP’s are bound to install new CT PT Unit in place of defective CT PT Unit of the complainant free of cost because of its under warranty, but the OP’s illegally charged Rs.72,000/- from the complainant, for which they are liable to return the same to him alongwith interest from the date of due till its realization. Due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. So, there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

          On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.72,000/- alongwith interest from the date of due till its realization and the opposite parties may be further burdened to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant towards mental harassment and mental agony suffered to the clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, in the interest of justice. Any other relief may also be passed in favour of the complainant.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that there are two words Guarantee and Warranty. The word Guarantee means the replacement of the Unit purchased free of cost and the word Warranty means the Repair of the Unit free of cost for certain prescribed period, that the Warranty is meant between the Manufacturer of the CT/PT Unit named and Styled as Adhunik Yantra Udyog Pvt. Ltd. Dehradun (Uttarakhand) and the PSPCL. There is no precedence to prove that if any Warranty has occurred between the PSPCL and any of its customers. As such the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone and even if it is presumed that any Warranty exists, the disputed CT/PT Unit had been rendered beyond Repair as the same had busted out. As such the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. It was pleaded that the complainant Germanjit Singh made a written complaint to the Sub Divisional Office of PSPCL Ghuman on 03.03.2018 and he mentioned that the CT/ PT Unit of his connection has been checked by the Senior X.E.N. MMTS Batala and the same may please be replaced at my own cost. And as per rules he deposited Rs.72,000/- as the cost of New CT/ PT Unit. It was further pleaded that it is wrong that the complainant requested the OP’s that CT/PT Unit was under Guarantee till June, 2018 as alleged in this complaint. It was further pleaded that as per the application dated 03.03.2018 the complainant has shown his willingness to deposit the cost of the CT/PT Unit. The direct supply was connected to the Ice Factory on 03.03.2018. Intimation regarding it was given to the X.E.N., PSPCL Division Qadian and the estimate was prepared and after that the complainant deposited Rs.72,000/- as cost of CT/PT Unit and other expenses on 08.03.2018. It was further pleaded that during the intervening period of replacement the CT/PT Unit the Ice Factory went on functioning and the complainant has not suffered any alleged financial loss. It was further pleaded that the complainant has deposited the sum of Rs.72,000/- on 08.03.2018 as per the rules and regulations of PSPCL and as per the checking dated 03.03.2018 conducted by the X.E.N. MMTS Department of PSPCL the yellow Phase of the CT/ PT Unit had burst due to Heavy Flash. The CT/ PT Unit was damaged and it was rendered beyond repair.

          On merits, the opposite parties have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

4.       Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Germanjit Singh, (Complainant) as Ex.CW-1 alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3.

5.       Learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered into evidence affidavit of Er. Nishan Singh, (S.D.O, P.S.P.C.Ltd, Sub – Division Ghuman, Gurdaspur) as Ex.OP-1 alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-6.

6.       Rejoinder filed by the complainant.

7.       Written arguments not filed by both the parties.

8.       We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsels for the parties; oral arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.

9.       As detailed above the present complaint was filed by the complainant for refund of Rs.72,000/- deposited by him as cost of metering equipment i.e. CT/PT unit of his ice factory namely Shri Guru Teg Bahadur Ice  Factory. The fact of the case is that CT/PT unit of said ice factory was damaged/burnt and it was requested by the complainant vide his application at Ex.OP-2 for its replacement with the consent to deposit the cost of CT/PT unit and also for direct supply during intervening period till its replacement. It is also the admitted fact that the complainant had deposited Rs.72,000/- on 08.03.2018 as per Ex.C3 against the notice of opposite parties as Ex.C2 vide memo No.695 dated 07.02.2018.

10.     As per Ex.OP-2 the electricity supply of the said industry remained direct vide order of the opposite parties dated 03.03.2018 and further CT/PT unit was replaced on 09.03.2018 vide order of opposite parties as Ex.OP-5 dated 06.03.2018.

11.     The main point raised by the complainant is that the CT/PT unit was under warranty period of five years, hence he was not required to deposit any amount. Complainant has also placed on record photocopy of name plate at Ex.C1. It is seen from the photocopy of the name plate that there is no account number or name of industry mentioned in Ex.C1 to show that it relates to same industry. The opposite parties pleaded that the warranty of the equipment is between the manufacturer and the opposite parties i.e. PSPCL and it was not between PSPCL and any of their consumer. Further, it was also pleaded that this CT/PT unit was declared as beyond repair and the warranty clause is not applicable. Further, during the course of arguments it was argued by the Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties that as per Electricity Supply Instructions Mannual Clause 56.2 it has been clearly mentioned as follows:-

          "If 11 KV CT/PT unit is damaged, full cost is to be recovered before replacing the damaged CT/PT unit. The cost to be recovered                  shall be as per cost of CT/PT unit circulated from time to time".         

Further as per regulation of 21.4.1of Electricity Supply Code- 2014, the cost of the burnt metering equipment is to be deposited by the consumer.

12.     From the above facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered opinion that the amount charged by the opposite parties to the consumer is in order and as per rules and regulations of the department. We find no merit in the present complaint and the complainant fails to prove his claim with cogent evidence.

13.     As far as the concern for the industry remained off due to damage of CT/PT unit as claimed by the complainant this claim of the complainant is also not justified as opposite parties have made the electric supply of the said connection as direct supply during the intervening period of replacement of CT/PT unit.

14.     In view of the aforesaid discussion, facts and circumstances of the case, the present complaint is hereby dismissed.

          No order as to costs.  

15.     The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases.

16.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.                                                                                                          

      (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                                 President  

Announced:                                               (B.S.Matharu)

Nov. 02, 2023                                                    Member

YP.