Punjab

Patiala

CC/16/477

M/s Shiva Cold Store - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Mayank Malhotra

21 Dec 2016

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,Patiala
Patiala
 
Complaint Case No. CC/16/477
 
1. M/s Shiva Cold Store
c/187-188 Focal Point Patiala through its authorized signlatory Manmohan Singh s/o Shri Gulabsingh
patiala
punjab
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. PSPCL
through its Chariman
patiala
punjab
2. 2.The Assistant Executive Eng.
west Sub Division PSPCL
Patiala
punjab
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  Smt. Neena Sandhu PRESIDENT
  Neelam Gupta Member
 
For the Complainant:Sh Mayank Malhotra, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 21 Dec 2016
Final Order / Judgement

M/s  Shiva Cold Store  Vs. PSPCL            CC/16/477

21.12.2016:Present: Sh.Mayank Malhotra,adv.counsel for complainant.

                   M/s Shiva Cold Store through its authorized signatory Sh.Manmohan Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs). In brief, the case of the complainant is that it is having MS connection bearing No.18/150, issued by the O.ps. with sanctioned load of 97.770KW for running Cold Storage. That on 5.8.2016, the Sr.XEN/EA & MMTS, Patiala has checked the connection and observed that the display of the meter is defective and it needs to be checked by Enforcement Wing of the O.Ps. But on the same day, OP no.2 issued notice bearing No.2608 dated 5.8.2016 having raised a demand of Rs.20,49,263/-from it. On enquiry, OP no.2 told that to avoid disconnection it should deposit Rs.6,00,000/- approximately out of the said amount. Accordingly, it deposited Rs.2,30,000/- on 11.8.2016, Rs.2,00,000/- on 19.8.2016 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 3.10.2016.That vide order No.3802 dated 17.11.2016, OP no.2 directed it to deposit the balance amount of Rs.14,19,263/-, failing which the connection shall be disconnected.It also received bill dated 3.11.2016 (which appears to be wrongly written as 22.11.2016 in the complaint) for an amount of Rs.20,16,600/-,wherein an amount of Rs.14,93,433/- has been shown as  sundry charges.That the notice no.3802 dated 17.11.2016 and the bill dated 3.11.2016 are illegal, null and void and against the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of being heard was afforded to it. That the electric connection of it has been disconnected by the OPs on 11.11.2016.I t is therefore, prayed that the implementation of the impugned notice No.3802 dated 17.11.2016 may kindly be setaside and the O.Ps. may kindly directed to restore the electric connection of it.

2.                We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant,  gone through the documents annexed alongwith with the complaint and have also perused  the report made by the Supdt. of this office.

3.                The complainant has filed the instant complaint against the O.Ps and has prayed for the following reliefs;

  1. To set aside the impugned notice dated 17.11.2016 and bill dated 3.11.2016

 

  1. to stay the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 17.11.2016

 

  1. to direct the O.Ps to restore the electric connection of the premises of the complainant

 

  1. to award compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment and humiliation to the consumer

 

  1. to award costs of the complaint

 

  1. any other relief in addition to above or in the alternative which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

4.                It may be stated that complainant has challenged the notice dated 17.11.2016, issued by the Ops. In this notice, it is mentioned that vide letter no.2608 dated 5.8.2016, O.Ps  asked  the complainant to deposit Rs.20,49,263/- for the reason that previously in the bills raised for consumption of electricity, O.ps have charged less M.F. On the request of the complainant, the Asstt. Executive Engineer allowed the complainant to deposit the said amount of Rs.20,49,263/-, in total 10 installments. Complainant had paid only three installments, i.e.  Rs.2,30,000/- on 11.8.2016, 2,00,000/- on and 19.8.2016 and Rs.2,00,000 on 3.10.2016 . Thereafter,  complainant did not pay the rest of the installments. Even the complainant did not pay the bill amount which was to be paid by 15.11.2016. The complainant was asked to pay the due installments and the amount of the bill, failing which action against it, as warranted under law, would be taken without issuance of any further notice. Even the bill dated 3.11.2016, challenged by the complainant is of Rs.20,16,600/-. In the case of  Ramesh Kumar Sihan Vs. Goyal Eye Institute ( CC No.135 of 2011 ) decided on 30.3.2012 by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Rredressal Commission, New Delhi, it has been held that whether it is District Forum, State Commission or National Commission., must consider the question, whether the complaint so filed before it is within pecuniary jurisdiction besides satisfying itself about the maintainability of the complaint on other parameters. Since the amounts mentioned in the notice dated 17.11.2016 as well as in the bill dated 3.11.2016 is more than Rs.20lacs, therefore, as per Section 11 of the Act, this Forum lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint.

5.                  For the reasons stated above, the complaint is dismissed in limine for want of pecuniary jurisdiction, with no order as to costs. The complainant however, shall be at liberty to file a fresh complaint before the appropriate Forum/Court having pecuniary jurisdiction. Certified copy of this order be sent to the complainant under the rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the record room.

 

                             NEELAM GUPTA       NEENA  SANDHU

                                  MEMBER                   PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
[ Smt. Neena Sandhu]
PRESIDENT
 
[ Neelam Gupta]
Member

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.