DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 317/2015
Date of Institution : 11.08.2015
Date of Decision : 19.05.2016
M/s Paramjit Filling Station (IOC Dealer), Barnala-Bazakhana Road, Sehna, Tehsil Tapa, District Barnala, through its Proprietor Paramjit Singh son of Sh. Amarjit Singh, resident of House No. 593, Street No. 2, Farid Nagar, Sangrur, District Sangrur.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division, Sehna, District Barnala.
3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division, Sehna, District Barnala.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. GP Singh counsel for complainant.
Sh. Varinder Kumar Goyal counsel for opposite parties.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Shri Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant has filed the present complaint against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. etc (in short the opposite parties) under Consumer Protection Act (in short the Act).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant got allotted one filling station (Petrol Pump) under the name and style Paramjit Filling Station by IBP Company at Village Sehna District Barnala for earning his livelihood. He got the electricity meter connection at this petrol pump under the Account No. L64GT640026L in the name of IBP Auto Service. It is further averred that in the year 2010 the IBP Company was taken over by IOC Ltd and since then the complainant is continuing to be the dealer of IOC Ltd but the electricity meter account still is in the name of IBP Auto Service.
3. It is alleged that according to the usage of electricity at the said pump the consumption is about 500 to 700 units per month. The complainant further alleged that he was astonished when he received the electricity bill in the month of April 2014 which was very excessive. Thereafter, he again received the electricity bills in the months of May, June, July 2014 showing the excessive reading. Therefore, he had not paid the amount of the said bills and he gave a written representation dated 8.7.2014 to opposite party No. 3 for checking of the electricity meter and to rectify the defect. It was further alleged that it was assured by opposite party No. 3 that the rectified bill would be sent to the complainant after checking the meter but to no effect. Thereafter, the complainant again received the bill in the month of August 2014 on 27.8.2014 showing the consumption to the tune of 2764 units and the bill amount was Rs. 1,40,400/- including previous arrears. Thereafter, the complainant again received the electricity bill for the month of September 2014 amounting to Rs. 1,55,860/- including previous years.
4. It is further alleged that on the request of the complainant the opposite parties checked the electricity meter and found the same as defective and rectified the same in the month of September 2014 before the issuance of the September bill and the complainant was asked to pay only Rs. 70,000/- towards the said bill and the said amount of Rs. 70,000/- told to be adjusted in the next bill amounts. Relying upon the representation of the opposite parties, the complainant deposited Rs. 70,000/- with the opposite parties vide receipt No. 186 dated 29.9.2014. Thereafter, the opposite parties issued the electricity bill for the month of October 2014 issued on 1.11.2014 showing the consumption of 516 units but the amount of previous arrears to the tune of Rs. 87,066/- has been also shown in the said bill. Then the complainant approached the opposite parties for redressing his grievance and also to adjust the said payment of Rs. 70,000/- but the opposite parties put the matter of with one pretext or the other. Thereafter, the complainant received the bills of November 2014 to July 2015 issued on 29.7.2015 including the amount of arrears. It is further alleged that despite various requests and visits the opposite parties failed to adjust the amount of Rs. 70,000/- but they are bent upon to disconnect the said electricity connection for recovering the amount of Rs. 1,23,038/-. It is thus alleged that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and thereafter the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-
1) To withdraw the bill of July 2015 amounting to Rs. 1,27,290/- and to issue the free bill after deducing the amount of Rs. 1,23,038/- and not to disconnect the electricity supply.
2) To pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for physical pain and inconvenience.
3) To pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
5. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties appeared and filed a written statement interalia taking legal objections on the grounds of locus standi, maintainability, bad for mis joinder of necessary parties, estoppal, jurisdiction, not coming to this Forum with clean hands.
6. On merits, it is submitted that the electric connection in dispute is in the name of IBP Auto Service Sehna vide Account No. C546/931 Old and new Account No. GT64/26 with S. Load 12.76 KW and therefore, the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. It is further submitted that till date the complainant has not filed/submitted any document/request for the transfer of connection in his name, so the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties. It is further submitted that as per record of the opposite parties since 13.11.2013, reading was 1077 units and bill was of Rs. 8,897/- which was not deposited by the consumer. Next bill of 25.12.2013 was of 1175 units for Rs. 18,593/-. The next bill dated 29.1.2014 with reading of 1517 units of Rs. 31,133/-. These bills were sent to the consumer on 27.7.2014 for Rs. 1,19,413/- and again on 27.8.2014 bill of Rs. 1,40,380/- was sent. Out of the said bill amount consumer paid Rs. 70,000/- on 29.9.2014. After payment of the said amount the balance amount remains as Rs. 72,237/-. Thereafter, the consumer continued to consume the electricity but not paid electricity bill amounting to Rs. 1,27,362/- up to 27.7.2015. Again bill dated 31.8.2015 the consumption of 497 units amounting to Rs. 1,31,330/- was issued against the consumer. They have denied the other allegations of the complainant and submitted that there is no deficiency on their part, rather this complaint is filed with malafide intention just to harass the opposite parties. They have finally prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.
5. In order to prove its case, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Paramjit Singh Ex.C-1, bills Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-13, receipt Ex.C-14, copy of representation dated 8.7.2014 Ex.C-15, copy of certificate under Punjab VAT Act Ex.C-16, copy of certificate under CST Act Ex.C-17 and closed the evidence.
6. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Er. Swaran Singh SDO PSPCL Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through all the record on the file carefully.
8. The first objection raised by the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. He has submitted that the electric connection in dispute is in the name of IBP Auto Service, Sehna vide new Account No. GT64/26 with S. Load 12.76 KW but the complainant failed to produce any authority letter or power of attorney to file the present complaint. On the other hand the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the complainant namely M/s Paramjit Filling Station is owned by Paramjit Singh and therefore heis competent to file the present complaint. It is relevant to peruse the documents placed on record. Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-13 are the electricity bills which are alleged to be in the name of IBP Auto Service. Ex.C-14 is the receipt issued by the opposite parties in favour of IBP Auto Service showing the deposit of Rs. 70,000/-. Ex.C-16 is the registration certificate indicating the registration number issued to the Paramjit Filling Station under VAT Act. Ex.C-17 is the another certificate of registration issued in favour of Paramjit Filling Station under the Central Sales Tax Act. Apart from these documents the complainant has not placed on record any document to show that he has been authorized by IBP Auto Service to file the present complaint. Even no deed or agreement with IBP Auto Service has been placed on record. No document to show that he is the proprietor of Paramjit Filling Station has been placed on record. Therefore, there is merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the complainant Paramjit Singh is not competent to file the present complaint.
9. Even otherwise, the present complaint is pertaining to the petrol pump which is being run for earning profits and the transactions of the petrol pump are involved huge amount and the transactions thus can be said to be commercial in nature.
10. In case titled N. Senthil Kumar Versus Senior Divisional Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited reported in 1 (2001) CPJ-119 (TN), it was held that the transactions relating to the petroleum products by the dealer is a commercial transaction and it will not come under Section 2 (d) (i) or (ii) and it is further observed that the complaint is not admissible.
11. As a result of the above discussion the complainant has miserably failed to prove that the present complaint is maintainable before this Forum. Hence the present complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost or compensation. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
19th Day of May 2016
(S.K. Goel)
President
(Karnail Singh)
Member
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member
