DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.179 of 26-02-2014

Decided on 04-08-2014

Sobha Singh aged about 42 years S/o Kapoor Singh R/o Phul, District Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

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

2.SDO/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

Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

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

For Opposite parties: Sh.R.D Goyal, counsel for the opposite parties.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is holding an electricity tubewell connection bearing account No.B61SP940129M which is being used for the agriculture purpose since its release and supply is given under metered supply. As per the policy of Punjab State Power Corporation the AP bills have been declared free as per CC No.26/98 and electricity tubewell connections that were released from the industrial quota have also been declared exempted from charging anything and again CC No.10/2006 has been issued about the free electricity to the farmers. The abovesaid electricity tubewell connection has been issued from tubewell category for the agricultural purposes. The commercial circular CC No.24/2008 is also about the free supply to the electricity tubewell connection holder. The complainant further alleged that the opposite parties started sending him the bills, which have been dispensed with and he is entitled for the free supply as per Circulars Nos.24/2008, 10/2006 and 26/1998. As per the government instructions the farming sector has been exempted to pay the electricity charges. As per Sales Regulations 85.03.01.02 the complainant is exempted to pay the electricity charges. The complainant many times requested the opposite parties to withdraw the bills, but to no effect. There are other electricity connections similar to the complainant i.e. Pritam Singh S/o Maghar Singh R/o Phul bearing account No.SP 6, Jagdev Singh S/o Uttam Singh R/o Phul bearing account No.SP 26, Jaspal Singh S/o Mukand Singh R/o Phul etc., whose bills are neither made nor charged. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions of this Forum to the opposite parties to dispense with the bills alongwith cost and compensation or to give him any other additional or alternative relief for which he may be found entitled to.

2. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the electricity connection bearing account No.B61SP940129M has been released to the complainant's father, hence the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the 'Act', moreover he has obtained the electricity tubewell connection under SP category. The SP electricity connection taken for Atta Chakki or fish farming are for the commercial purpose, as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The true facts are that the complainant has applied for SP electricity connection for fish farming that has been released to him for the commercial purpose. The power supply of the abovesaid electricity connection is on urban/city feeder that is a metered supply for 24 hours. The opposite parties further pleaded that the electricity tubewell connection in question is running under SP category that has not been converted into AP category and have referred to the precedents laid down by the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in case titled as Lachhman Singh Vs. PSPCL, First Appeal No.1484 of 2006 and case titled as Lakhveer Singh Vs. PSPCL, First Appeal No.1985 of 2006, decided on 5.3.2007 and have referred to circular No.10/2006 and pleaded that the complainant does not fall under any of the aforesaid categories. As per circular No.71/2003, only those AP electricity connections have to be considered for the free supply that have been running from the rural feeder and that were registered prior to 31.3.1990, but the electricity tubewell connection of the complainant cannot be converted into AP category, as it is on urban/city feeder. The opposite parties further pleaded that as the complainant is claiming for the free electricity supply i.e. hiring of service without consideration, so the matter does not fall within the ambit of 'Act' and he is supposed to approach the Civil Court. Since the date of release of the electricity tubewell connection in question to the complainant, the opposite parties have been sending him the bills, which he has been voluntarily depositing with them without raising any protest. The complainant is not entitled for the free electricity supply. The opposite parties are well within their right to disconnect the electricity connections of the connection holder if he failed to pay the consumption charges as per the rules of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited.

3. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. The submission of the complainant is that he is holding an electricity tubewell connection bearing account No.B61SP940129M which is being used for the agriculture purpose since its release and supply is given under metered supply. As per the policy of Punjab State Power Corporation the AP bills have been declared free as per Commercial Circulars No.26/98; 10/2006 and 24/2008. As per the government instructions the farming sector has been exempted to pay the electricity charges. The complainant further submitted that he requested many times to the opposite parties to withdraw the bills, but nothing has been done by them so far.

6. On the other hand the submission of the opposite parties is that the complainant has filed the present complaint on the ground that he is having electricity tubewell connection bearing No.B61SP940129M with sanctioned load of 5.93 KW, which is being used for the agricultural purpose since its release. The opposite parties further submitted that as per Ex.C6 the SP electricity tubewell connection has been issued to the complainant for workshop. As per the order of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ex.OP1/2 and Ex.OP1/3, if the applicant wants to get the benefit of 85.5.2, he has to apply to the concerned authority to have the rates as Sales Regulations and it will be decided as per the rules and regulations of the Board. It has also been mentioned at Page No.5 in this order that if the complainant wants the AP connection, he may apply and stand in queue like other applicants who may apply under AP connection. As per Ex.OP1/5 to Ex.OP1/6, the billing chart, indemnity bond, affidavit of Gurjant Singh, application for getting the connection, demand notice, test report, SCO, bill etc. the abovesaid electricity connection is under SP category, as such the opposite parties are entitled to get the bill from the complainant and he is not entitled to get any exemption from paying the bills. To support their version the opposite parties have referred to various authorities.

7. A perusal of record placed on file shows that the tariff type of electricity tubewell connection bearing No.B61SP940129M is SP with connected load of 7.79 KW. A further perusal of record placed on file, Ex.OP1/9, shows that the complainant has applied the electricity connection under SP category.

8. As discussed above the electricity connection of the complainant is SP electricity connection that has not been converted into AP/TW (Tubewell) connection by the opposite parties till date and he has been receiving the bills on SP tariff, which is evident from Ex.C2 and Ex.C3, thus the complainant cannot seek the benefits of the abovesaid circulars, as the tariff has not been converted by Punjab State Power Corporation Limited till date. According to the precedents laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission and Hon'ble State Commissions in catena of judgments cited at 1994 (1) CPJ NC Page 45; 1997 (2) CPJ NC Page 354; 1992 CPC Punjab Page 338; 1999 (1) CPJ Shimla Page 11; 1998 (2) CPC Shimla Page 588 and 1996 (2) CPC Patna Page 391, the consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the validity of tariff prepared by Punjab State Power Corporation Limited. Thus this complaint is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost, being not maintainable before this Forum.

9. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum:-

04-08-2014

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh)

Member