DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No.124of 3.4.2007<br /> Decided on: 28.1.2008<br /> Joginder Kumar aged about 35 years son of Sh.Bhagirath Ram, R/o H.No.63, Seetal Colony, Rajpura, District Patiala.<br /> <br /> -----------Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board (West) Rajpura, District Patiala, <br /> through its Asstt.Executive Engineer.<br /> 2. Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala through its<br /> Secretary.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ----------Opposite parties.<br /> <br /> Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the<br /> Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> QUORUM<br /> <br /> Sh.Inderjit Singh, President<br /> Smt.Paramjit Kaur, Member<br /> <br /> Present:<br /> For the complainant: Sh.K.S.Sidhu, adv.<br /> For opposite parties: Sh.B.L.Bhardwaj, adv.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Complainant,Joginder Kumar has brought this consumer complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended up to date ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the opposite parties fully detailed and described in the head note of the complaint.<br /> 2. As per averments made in the complaint the case of the complainant is like this;<br /> That complainant and his wife Raj Bala are running an Aata Chakki at their residence i.e. House No.63, Seetal Colony, Rajpura from more than 20m years. The complainant and his wife are running the aata Chakki to earn livelihood and self employment and there is no employee in the shop. The complainant is having an electricity connection from opposite party No.1 vide account No.SP-87-0313 and connected load was 5.93 till Devember/2006.The aata khaki is situated at the residence of complainant and is in residential area. The complainant is paying all the bills regularly as per consumption. That from November 06 to January 07 opposite parties for enhancement of load called applications from Small Power Supply consumers under SP category under VDS.Accordingly complainant applied for the same on 3.1.2007 for enhancement of present load 5.93 to 9.93.The complainant completed all formalities as desired by opposite party No.1.The complainant deposited requisite fee Rs.5500/-vide receipt No.24 dated 9.1.2007.The opposite parties sent bill dated 27.1.2007 for enhanced load i.e. 9.92 KW for the period 9.12.2006 to 9.1.2007 which complainant paid. That complainant was shocked to receive letter No.286 dated 25.1.2007 from opposite party No.1 requiring the complainant to submit the following certificates within 7 days as per CC No.3/07:-<br /> (i) Certificate from Municipal Council regarding residential/non-residential<br /> (ii) No objection certificate from Pollution Control Board.<br /> The opposite parties have further written that in case complainant fails to do so opposite parties will do the further necessary proceedings and shall adjust the load enhanced amount in his account. That after receiving the said letter complainant went to the office of opposite party No.1 and requested to reconsider the matter as circular No.03/07 dated 10.1.2007 is not appreciable to complainant but they refused to listen the complainant and threatened to reduce the load from 9.92 to 5.93.That complainant fears that opposite parties will reduce the enhanced load and will adjust the amount of Rs.5500/- in his account which complainant has deposited for enhancement of load. That action of opposite parties is arbitrary, illegal against rules of natural justice for calling certificates from MC and PPCB after sanction of load and that too on the basis of later circular due to which complainant has suffered lot of harassment and mental agony and opposite parties have committed deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.<br /> 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties who appeared and filed the written reply contesting the claim of the complainant. It is denied that the complainant and his wife Raja Bala are running Aatta chakki at their residence to earn livelihood and self employment only. It is denied that the complainant completed all the documentation and formalities as were required for enhancement of load under VDS load for industrial purpose in residential area. As per item Ser. (ix) of CC No.57/06 of the P.S.E.B. the complainant was required to comply with the terms and conditions within 6 months after having been granted the enhancement of load. But the same has since been amended/modified by P.S.E.B. vide its circular No.3/07 issued vide memo No.2038/2838 dated 10.1.2007 according to which it has been laid down that “for any extension of load of industrial connection running in the residential areas approval of “NOC” shall be obtained from the statutory body i.e. Municipal Committee/Municipal Corporation?PUDA before allowing extension in load under VDS”.The complainant is required to submit NOC from statutory body as per CC 57/06 and CC 03/07 as asked for vide memo No.286 dated 25.1.2007 and memo No.682 dated 23.2.2007 which complainant/his representative refused to receive the same, which is as per laid down procedure and policy of the P.S.E.B.on the subject and there is no illegality in it. That the action of the opposite parties in this case has been legal, bonafide and transparent and there is no illegality in it. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and have prayed that complaint be dismissed.<br /> 4. In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit,Ex.C1, copy of bill dated 28.12.2006,Ex.C2, copy of application form,Ex.C3,copy of affidavit,Ex.C4, copy of affidavit,Ex.C5, copy of receipt,Ex.C6,copy of bill dated 27.1.20076,Ex.C7,copy of receipt,Ex.C8, letter of opposite parties,Ex.C9 and copy of bill dated 27.5.2007,Ex.C10.<br /> 5. In rebuttal the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of AEE Ashok Bansal, Ex.R1, circular No.57/06,Ex.R2, copy of circular No.3/07,Ex.R3, copy of memo No.286 dated 25.8.2007, Ex.R4 and memo No.682 dated 23.2.2007, Ex.R5.<br /> 6. The parties filed written arguments. We have gone through the same and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties.<br /> 7. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the opposite parties vide circular No.57/2006,Ex.R2, introduced a scheme to regularize already running unauthorized load of SP category consumer under Voluntarily Disclosure Scheme for SP consumers only w.e.f.7.11.2006 upto 31.1.2007 vide memo dated 3.11.2006, Ex.R2.He has further contended that the complainant applied for the same on 3.1.2007 for enhancement of load from 5.93 to 9.93. The complainant after fulfilling all the formalities as directed in the circular (Ex.R2) and depositing the requisite fees applied on the specific Performa for the enhancement of the aforesaid load,Exs.C2 to C6.He has further contended that the opposite parties enhanced the load from 5.93 to 9.93 accordingly on 3.1.2007 and also sent electricity bill dated 27.1.2007,Ex.C7, to the complainant with enhanced connected load of 9.92 K.W. which shows that the opposite parties enhanced the connected load of the complainant to 9.92 KW.He has further contended that the disputed letter No.286 dated 25.1.2007,Ex.C9, directing the complainant to submit the certificate from Municipal Council regarding residential/non residential and no objection certificate from Pollution Control Board within seven days. It was also directed in the letter that failing which the enhanced load will be reduced to the original one. He has further contended that the disputed letter is absolutely arbitrary, illegal against the rules of natural justice, un constitutional, without jurisdiction malafide as the load once enhanced can not be reduced on the basis of any instructions issued for the enhancement of the connected load of a consumer which amounts to deficiency of service.<br /> 8. On the other hand the learned counsel for the opposite parties has contended that the complainant is not entitled to any relief since he has failed to submit the requisite NOC from the Municipal Corporation for enhancement of electricity load for commercial/industry purpose in the residential area till date in spite of repeated requests made to her. He has further contended that the action of the opposite parties is legal, bonafide and transparent and there has been no illegality in it.<br /> 9. We have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.<br /> 10. Instruction No.9 of Commercial Circular No.57/2006,Ex.R2 runs as under:<br /> “The release of load under VDS shall be further subject to condition that the consumer shall submit an affidavit for submission of NOC for his total load from the PPCB within six months of declaration of extended load, if the same is applicable to his industry to be decided by load sanctioning authority.<br /> Similarly NOC from Municipal Corporation/Committees and PUDA shall not be insisted upon from such consumers, whose industry is already running in the residential areas or other restricted areas subject to the condition that if any statutory body or courts objects later on for the extension so granted, P.S.E.B.shall be at liberty to withdraw the extension for which suitable undertaking may be taken from the consumer. However, such consumers shall be required to deposit ACD at double the normal rates for the extended load only. In case of change of category from SP to MS,the ACD for the existing load shall be charged as per MS category after giving due credit for the ACD already deposited and for the extended load, the ACD shall be charged at double the normal rates for MS category.”<br /> <br /> 11. So, as per the instruction No.9 NOC from Municipal Corporation/committees & PUDA was not required from the consumers whose industry was already running in the residential areas or other restricted areas. Admittedly the load under the V.D.S. was increased from 5.93 to 9.93 on 3.1.2007.Whereas the disputed memo No.286 dated 25.1.2007 was issued on the basis of CC.No.3/2007 which was issued on 19.1.2007.Thus, C.C.No.3/2007 dated 19.1.2007 is not applicable to the complainant. The issuing of the disputed memo No.286 dated 25.1.2007 and memo no.682 dated 23.2.2007 amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 12. In view of our above discussion the complaint is accepted partly and the opposite parties are directed to withdraw their letter dated 25.1.2007 and are further directed not to reduce the present load and not to adjust the deposited amount of Rs.5500/-in his account. The parties are however, left to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.<br /> File be consigned to the record.<br /> Pronounced.<br /> Dated 28.1.2008<br /> <br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br />