DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 656 of 13-10-2014

Decided on 02-07-2015

Jarnail Singh aged about 59 years S/o Sham Singh, R/o Village Phul, Tehsil Phul, 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. Harjinder Singh, counsel for complainant.

For the opposite parties : Sh. J P S Brar, counsel for Opposite Parties.

O R D E R

M.P.Singh Pahwa, President

Jarnail 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. B61SP940144F. 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.

On this background of the facts, complainant has filed this complaint wherein he has claimed compensation for mental tension and harassment amounting to Rs. 50,000/- 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 that complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint; he is not consumer as connection was obtained by him is SP connection; he has not come to this Forum with clean hands rather has concealed the true and material facts.

The version of the opposite parties is that complainant has applied for SP connection and accordingly SP connection was released to him for commercial purpose. The power supply of the said connection is on urban/city feeder, which is metered supply. The connection is running under SP category and the same cannot be covered into AP category as the complainant cannot be allowed to avail the AP connection as against the SP connection by entering through the back door. Moreover,as percircular no.71/2003 only those AP connections have to be considered for free supply which had been been running from rural feeder and that too which were registered prior to 31.3.90, but the connection of the complainant was released after year 1990.Moreover the connection is on urban/city feeder.

It is further alleged that complainant is claiming free supply of electricity i.e. hiring of service without consideration, so the matter does not fall within the ambit of 'Act'. That intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the matter which requires voluminous evidence, as such the matter cannot be decided by this Forum in summary way. The opposite parties also raised legal objection that complaint is hopelessly time barred.

It is also asserted that there is neither deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The circulars do not help the complainant to get free supply and the complaint is false and frivolous.

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 affidavit of Jarnail Singh (Ex. C-5 ), copies of letters (Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2), copy of rules of PSPCL (Ex. C-3) and copy of bill (Ex. C-4).

In order to rebut this evidence, opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Sukhpal Singh, S.D.O dated 04-05-15 (Ex. OP-1/1), copy of order of Permanent Lok Adalat (Ex. OP-1/2). The complainant has also submitted written submission.

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

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 bill 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. Copy of the electricity bill produced by the complainant as Ex. C-4 proves 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 in 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 rural 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 bill Ex. C-4 proves 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. This connection was released to the complainant under SP category. 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.

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. Of course, 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 under SP category. 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 bill Ex. C-4. Of course this bill proves that it is meant for tubwell but at the same time, it is shown in SP category and not in AP category. The complainant has not produced any other document to prove this fact.

In such circumstances when the complainant has failed to prove that the connection in question is for agricultural purposes i.e. AP category and the supply is from rural feeder, he is not entitled to any benefit on the basis of aforesaid circulars.

Although 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-1 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-2 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 Hon'ble 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-2 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 :

02-07-2015

(M.P.Singh Pahwa )

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh )

Member