DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 404 of 08-07-2014

Decided on 18-06-2015

Ranjit Singh aged about 50 years S/o Bachan Singh R/o Lehra Mohabbat, District Bathinda.

…...Complainant

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its Secretary

S.D.O. /AEE, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, City Sub Division Rampura, District Bathinda.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum :

Sh. M.P.Singh. Pahwa, President

Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member

Sh. Jarnail Singh, Member

Present :

For the Complainant : Sh. Ashok Gupta, counsel for complainant.

For the opposite parties : Sh. J D Nayyar, counsel for Opposite Parties.

O R D E R

M.P.Singh Pahwa, President

Ranjit Singh, complainant has filed this complaint against Punjab State Power Corporation and others, opposite parties under Section 12 of the consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act').

Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is holding electric connection bearing A/c No. B61SP930052F. This connection was released after full-filling all the formalities. It is alleged that electrical tubewell connection is being used for agriculture work since its release. The supply is given under metered supply. It is further pleaded that as per policy of Power Com, the AP bills were declared free as per CC No. 26/98. The tubewell connections which were released from Industrial quota were also declared exempted from charging anything. Again CC No. 10/2006 was issued about free electricity to the farmers. The connection of the complainant was issued from tubewell category and it was for agricultural purposes. It is alleged that opposite parties started sending bills which are against law and are void and illegal. The connection is being used for tubewell purposes which is also mentioned in the bill. Bills have been dispensed with and complainant is entitled to free supply as per Circulars No. 10/2006 and 26/1998. As per Government instructions, farming sector has been exempted to pay electricity charges. As per Sales Regulations 85.03.01.02 also, the complainant is exempted to pay charges for electricity. The opposite parties are not entitled to charge the bills as bills are dispensed with.

The complainant has also mentioned that there are other connections similar to complainant i.e. Pritam Singh S/o Maghar Singh SP 6 R/o Phul, Jagdesh Singh S/o Uttam Singh SP 26, R/o Phul, Jaspal Singh S/o Mukand Singh, R/o Phul etc., whose bills are not being charged. The complainant has further pleaded that he is consumer. He is using tubewell and paying bills. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as the services are hired one against consideration.

On this background of the facts, complainant has filed this complaint wherein he has claimed compensation for mental tension and harassment amounting to Rs. 80,000/- in addition to cost of Rs. 5,000/- and directions to opposite parties to dispense with the bills immediately.

Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written version. In written version, opposite parties raised legal objections inter-alia; that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainant does not have any cause of action to file the present complaint; complainant has not approached this forum with cleans hand and has suppressed the material facts; this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint; complaint is false and frivolous; complainant is not entitled to the relief prayed for. It is asserted that there is neither deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant is not consumer as defined under the 'Act'. That the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation.

The version of the opposite parties is that connection has been obtained for fish farming and falls under SP category and not AP category. Right from the stage of filing of application and agreement form, all the documentation has been done for fish farming. It is also alleged that at no point of time, the said SP connection has been changed in the AP category and it cannot be legally changed. The connection has been always running under SP category. There has been a long que of applicants who have applied for connections under AP category who have been waiting for their connections under AP connection after paying the requisite amount. In case the opposite parties start converting SP connections into AP, it shall not only be a huge loss to the PSPCL but shall also be injustice to the applicants who have been waiting for their turn under AP category.

On merits also, opposite parties controverted all the material averments and reiterated their version as taken in legal objections and detailed above. In the end, the opposite parties have prayed for dismissal of complaint.

Both the parties were afforded opportunity to produce evidence. In support of his claim, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits of Ranjit Singh (Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-5), photocopies of bills (Ex. C-2 to Ex.C-4), copy of memo No. 12237 (Ex. C-6), copy of memo No. 644 (Ex. C-7) and copy of page No. 186(Ex. C-8).

In order to rebut this evidence, opposite parties have tendered into evidence documents Ex. OP-1/1 to Ex. OP-1/12 which includes affidavit of Sukhpal Singh, S.D.O dated 16-11-14 (Ex. OP-1/1), copy of SCO (Ex. OP-1/2), copy of demand notice (Ex. OP-1/3), copies of test reports (OP-1/4 to Ex. OP-1/12) and copy of A&A Form (Ex. OP-1/12). The complainant has also submitted written submission.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record and written submissions of the parties.

It is submitted by the leaned counsel for the complainant that material facts are not in controversy. It is not disputed that complainant is having one electric connection. He is using this connection for agricultural purposes. The complainant has also placed on record electricity consumption bills to prove that he is consumer and to prove that nothing is due towards him. As per scheme of Punjab Government, all the AP connections and other connections which are being used for agricultural purposes are exempted from consumption charges. The opposite parties have issued various circulars from time to time. As per Circular No. 26/98 free supply to agricultural tubewell was continued. Again vide Circular No. 10 of 2006 all the categories of agricultural tubewells including tubewells released under SP category were to be given free supply. However, it was mentioned that free supply was to continue to the tubewell consumers who are not defaulter of energy/flat rate charges for the period pertaining upto 31-8-2005. It is not the case of the opposite parties that complainant ever remained defaulter. Copies of the electricity bills produced by the complainant as Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-4 prove that connection in question is for the purpose of tubewell. Ofcourse it is mentioned 'SP category' but this connection was converted into AP category. Even if opposite parties have not performed their duty for converting this connection to AP category, opposite parties cannot take benefit of their own default.

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for complainant that number of other consumers also approached this Forum regarding same grievances and their complaints were accepted. The complainant is also entitled to get benefit given by Punjab Government as well as Power Com.

It is also submitted by learned counsel for complainant that as per Commercial Circular No. 71 of 2003, all the connections running on the metered supply, AP/SP are exempted from making the payment and AP connections are to be converted which are running on metered supply. Similarly Commercial Circular No. 41 of 2005 says that tubewells running on Urban Feeder of SP category, are to be charged flat rate/metered tariff. Free power is also available to agricultural tubewells released under the specific policy of Board under SP category according to sales regulation No. 85.1.3. As per sales regulation No. 85.5.2 also, AP connections running under AP metered or SP tariff on rurel feeders are to be governed under SP tariff category after verification by Sr. XEN/DS that such connections are used exclusively for agricultural purposes. Ofcourse there is no verification by Sr.XEN but the bills Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-4 prove that tubewell connection is running to cultivate the land only. As such, this connection falls under exemption/free supply.

It is further submitted that opposite parties are giving benefit by pick and choose. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that free supply to agriculturalist does not violate Article 14. To support this submission, learned counsel for the complainant also cited 1996(2) CPC 23 titled as Real Food Products Ltd., Vs. AP State Electricity Board & Others.

On the other hand, leaned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that complainant has concealed material facts from this Forum. Arguments advanced by the complainant and circulars referred by the complainant are not applicable in his case. These circulars relate to the connections which were released exclusively for agricultural purposes. The complainant has not obtained connection for agricultural purposes. He has rather obtained connection for Fish Farming under SP category. This connection was released to the complainant under SP category and for Fish Farming only. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any exemption. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that complainant has never got converted his connection from SP category to AP category by full-filling the requirements for conversion of his connection. Therefore, complainant is not entitled to any relief.

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that complainant is disputing his liability to pay charges which amounts to dispute regarding Tariff applicable to the complainant. The matter relating to determination of Tariff is beyond the purview of Consumer Forum. From this angle also, complainant is not entitled to any relief.

In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the opposite parties cited 1993 (III) CPJ 365 case titled M/s. Anand Cane Crusher Vs. UP State Electricity Board & Anr., wherein it was observed that a dispute in the realm of 'pricing' is beyond the jurisdiction of Consumer Forums. Learned counsel for opposite parties also cited 1992 CPC 338 case titled Shri Raghbir Singh Vs. The Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board; 1994 CPJ 45 (NC) case titled Phool Chand Aggarwal Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board & Anr; 1997(2) CPC 354 case titled Maharashtra State Electricity Board Vs. Sheshrao, to support his submissions. Learned counsel for opposite parties has also referred decision of Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh rendered in Revision Petition No. 14 of 2007 decided on 5-3-2007 in case titled Malwinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Electricty Board (connected with other Revisions and Appeals).

We have carefully gone through the record and have considered the rival contentions.

From the averments of the complainant coupled with evidence brought on record and arguments advanced by the complainant, the case of the complainant is summarized as under :-

i)That the complainant obtained one electric connection for agricultural purposes only.

ii)That the complainant is entitled to get his connection converted from SP category to AP category.

iii)That the complainant is entitled to free electricity supply in view of the various circulars issued by the opposite parties.

The case of the opposite parties is as under :-

i)That complainant has obtained connection in question for commercial purposes i.e. Fish Farming.

ii) That the complainant is not entitled to free power supply as the circulars are not applicable in the case of the complainant.

The complainant has referred to Commercial Circulars No. (i) 26 of 1998, (ii) 71 of 2003 (iii) 42 of 2005 (iv) 10 of 2006 and (iii) Sales Regulation No 85.5.2. In order to examine the case of the complainant on merits, a brief reference of the above quoted circulars is also relevant :

(i) CC No. 26/98

“IV Schedule A.P. Agriculture Pumping Supply

Free supply to Agriculture tubewells covered as under shall continue till further order :

(i) Flat rate and metered rate category getting supply from rural/urban feeders.

(ii) Only agricultural tubewells released under Small Power Industrial category as per policy of Board issued vide CC 16/90 dated 30-3-90.

(iii) Tubewell connections released to PSTC/IB and under TCA Scheme.

(ii) CC No. 71/2003

Sub : Conversion of AP connections running on metered supply under AP/SP category

The representations have been received from SP/AP consumers individually and through Associations to charge flat rate of AP tariff of Rs. 60/- per BHP instead of SP tariff or AP metered tariff as these connections are being used for running tubewells for agriculture purposes for irrigating crops only.

In view of above and to avoid discrimination, the matter has been considered and it has been decided that those AP connections running on metered supply under AP metered or SP tariff on rural feeders and which were registered prior to 31-3-90 i.e. the date upto which demand notice(s) have been issued for release of AP connections under general category shall be converted prospectively to AP flat rate category after verification by Sr. Xen/Op that such connections are used exclusively for agriculture purpose.”

(iii) CC No. 42/2005

Sub : Revision of tariff w.e.f.1.4.2005.

8 Agricultural Pump Sets for Irrigation Purpose

(a) Farmers of Kandi Area, PAU Ludhiana, PSTC tubewells, lift irrigation & other connections of tubewell released under SP/MS category who had applied connections after 31.3.90 to be charged as under :

(b) AP tubwell consumers getting supply from rural feeders to be charged A.P. Flat rate/A.P. Metered tariff.

(c) AP tubewell consumers getting supply from urban/city/ urban pattern supply feeder to be charged AP metered tariff.

(d) AP consumers located within Municipal limits will be covered under AP metered rate as before.”

(iv) CC No. 10/2006

Sub:Free Electricity to Agricultural Tube well consumers

It has been decided by Government of Punjab to give free electricity w.e.f. 1-9-2005 onward to all categories of Agricultural Tubewell such as Tube well covered under Flat Rate/Metered Supply category. Agricultural Tube Wells released under SP category, tubewell connections released to farmers of Kandi Area, PAU Ludhiana, PSTC/IB lift irrigation other connections released under SP/MS category and under TCA (Technical Co-op Assistance).”

(iv) Sales Regulation No. 85.5.2

“AP connections running under AP metered or SP tariff on rural feeders shall be governed under AP tariff category after verification by Sr.Xen/DS that such connections are used exclusively for agricultural purposes.”

A perusal of all these circulars makes the position clear that all these circulars are related to connections meant for agricultural purposes. Ofcourse, complainant has alleged that he is using tubewell connection for agricultural purposes since its release. The stand of the opposite parties is that complainant obtained connection in question for Fish Farming. When the opposite parties have denied the averments of the complainant, complainant was required to prove the facts alleged by him. Therefore, it was for the complainant to prove that he obtained connection for agricultural purposes only. The only document to prove this fact is electricity consumption bills Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-4. Ofcourse these bills prove that they are meant for tubwell but at the same time, they are shown in SP category and not in AP category. The complainant has not produced any other document to prove this fact.

On the other hand, the opposite parties have placed on record copy of A&A Form (Application and Agreement Form) Ex. OP-1/5. This document proves that application of the complainant was for connection for the purpose of Fish Farming. Copies of test report and demand notice Ex. OP-1/4 and Ex. OP1/3 respectively also reveal that connection was sanctioned for fish farming. Ex. OP-1/2 is the Service Connection Order. This document also depicts that connection in question was released for fish farming. Therefore, record produced on file by the opposite parties prove that complainant has obtained connection in question for the purpose of Fish Farming. As such, complainant is not entitled to any benefit on the basis of aforesaid circulars.

Ofcourse it is not the case of the complainant that he is entitled to conversion of his SP connection to AP connection but the complainant has brought on record some documents to claim this relief also. Ex. C-6 is copy of letter written by Dy. Director/Sales IV to SE/OP Circle, but this was relating to one Ex. Subedar Sh. Harnesk Singh. Ex. C-7 is the letter by Assistant Engineer (SDO) of the area wherein it was mentioned that persons named in the report had run in losses so far as their Pissiculture (fisheries) avocation was concerned, they have started using electricity connection for running tubewell for agricultural purposes. It was recommended that as per memo No. 15412/18/C1/TW/PTA dated 12-12-2001 issued by Chief Engineer/Commercial (Tariff Dte.) of the Electricity Board, their connections be converted from SP category to AP category. The name of complainant does not figure in the persons for whose conversion of connection was recommended. Moreover, the same letter was under consideration before Honble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in the case of Malwinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board (Supra) and it was observed that :

The question that arises for determination is : Were the complainants, who had got SP category connections for running the avocation of Pissiculture (Fish Farming) having failed in their avocation and incurred losses, entitled to convert the user of the electricity connection in AP category i.e. for agricultural purposes and also pay the tariff for agriculture purposes which is applicable for AP category connections ? It was concluded that Memo No. 15/2001 clearly envisages that in such an eventuality the electricity connection which was earlier in SP category and is now being used for agricultural purposes shall be charged SP tariff.

Therefore letter Ex. C-7 also does not help the complainant to get his connection converted from SP category to AP category.

The provisions of Sales Regulations of Punjab State Electricity Board also does not help the complainant. As per these provisions, AP connections running under AP metered or SP tariff on rural feeders shall be governed under AP tariff category after verification by Sr. Xen/DS that such connections are used exclusively for agriculture purposes. There is nothing on record to show that complainant ever applied for change of tariff according to the Sales Regulations. There is also nothing to prove that request of complainant for change of tariff was accepted after following due procedure i.e. verification.

Therefore the conclusion is that the complainant has failed to prove that he obtained the electric connection in question for agricultural purposes. As such, he is not entitled to any benefit of the circulars quoted by him. In such circumstances, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

In view of above discussion, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

Announced :

18-06-2015

(M.P.Singh Pahwa )

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh )

Member