Punjab

Hoshiarpur

CC/14/147

Suresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Deepak Marwaha

09 Feb 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM HOSHIARPUR

(3RD FLOOR, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX, HOSHIARPUR)

C.C. No. 147/09.07.2014

Decided on : 09.02.2015

Suresh Kumar aged 47 years S/o Shiv Dayal R/o village Begroi, P.O. Tanda Ram Sahai Tehsil Mukerian District Hoshiarpur.

Complainant

vs.

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. through its Chief Managing Director, the Mall, Patiala.

2. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Sub Division Bhangala, District Hoshiarpur through its Assistant Executive Engineer (Sanchalan).

Opposite parties

 

Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ashok Kumar,President.

              Mrs. Sushma Handoo,Member.

 

Present: Sh.C.S.Marwaha, counsel for the complainant.

             Ms.Unita Uppal, counsel for the OPs.

 

ORDER

PER ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. through its Chief Managing Director and another (hereinafter referred to as OP, for short) praying for a direction to OPs to quash memo no. 1700 dated 23-05-2014 issued by OP no. 2 and to restrain from disconnecting the electricity supply of the complainant and further to pay Rs. 50,000/- as damages for inconvenience and harassment suffered by him and Rs. 15,000/- as litigation costs.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case relevant for disposal of the present complaint are that complainant in order to earn his livelihood by way self employment is running a Flour Mill (Atta Chakki) at Village Amirpur Jattan, P.O. Tanda Ram Sahai, Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur. Since the installation of the electric connection, the complainant has been regularly paying the electricity charges as per bills received by him. It is further averred that before releasing the said connection, complainant was directed to deposit Rs. 11,390/- by the OP no. 2 which he deposited but after about two months , he was again directed by the OP no. 2 to deposit Rs. 1,36,940/-. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed a complaint against the OPs before this Forum and during the proceeding of the said complaint, OP no. 2 has been pressurizing the complainant to withdraw the said complaint but the complainant refused to do so. However, vide order dated 13-05-2014 of this Forum, the said complaint was partly allowed . After the decision of the said complaint, the OP no. 2 spared no pains to make hell of the life of complainant and his family member by one way or the other by adopting illegal methods. It is further averred that now the complainant was surprised to receive memo no. 1700 dated 23-05-2014 after the decision of the consumer complaint in which it is alleged by the OP no. 2 that the connection of the complainant in question was checked and he was found to run Mini Rice Sheller and he was directed to get the N.O.C. from the Punjab Pollution Control Board ( PPCB, for short) and in case the needful was not done, his connection would be disconnected. It is further averred that memo no.1700 dated 23-05-2014 and alleged checking report no. 40/184 dated 22-05-2014 issued by OP no. 2 are patently illegal, wrong and not based on true facts and as such are liable to be quashed. In fact, the connection in question was not inspected in the presence of the complainant or any of his representatives. No proper procedure had been followed by the OPs as per law/rules before alleged checking and before issuance of notice in question. It is further averred that there are number of consumers who are running mini rice millers but the OPs never asked them to produce the N.O.C from the Punjab Pollution Control Board. It is further averred that the complainant is using the electricity supply within the sanctioned load and at the time of sanctioning the connection to the complainant, no objection certificate from the panchayat as required was submitted to the OP no. 2. Therefore, the OP has no authority to disconnect the electricity supply of the complainant on the basis of the memo in question. It is further averred that after the issuance of the memo in question, the complainant visited the office of OP no. 2 and requested it to withdraw the memo in question but it flatly refused to accede to the genuine request of the complainant . The complainant has been suffering a lot of inconvenience, harassment due to the act and conduct of the OP. Hence this complaint.

3. On notice, OPs filed joint contested written statement taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in its present form; complainant has got no locus-standi to file the present complaint; the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and he has concealed the material facts; complainant is not a consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present case in the light of judgement dated 01-07-2013 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled U.P Power Corporation Limited & others vs Anis Ahmad & others as the present case falls u/s 126 of the Indian electricity Act 2003; Complainant has violated rules/ regulations of Supply Code, Conditions of Supply and the provisions of the Electricity Act. On merits, it is denied that the complainant in order to earn his livelihood by way of self employment is running a Floor Mill (Atta Chakki) at village Amirpur Jattan, P.O. Tanda Ram Sahai, Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur. In fact, the complainant is using the electric connection for the commercial purpose and running a floor mill and Mini Sheller from that electric connection. It is admitted that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs. 11390/- vide R no BA 16 no. 581/34016 dated 19-07-2012 as initial security for getting an electric connection of Atta chakki through A & A no. 25935/SP dated 19-07-2012 in which he has mentioned his occupation as business and not self employment . It is further replied that after getting the approval of the financial and technical estimate for releasing the electric connection of the complainant for Atta Chaki, a demand notice no, 1490 dated 03-08-2012 was issued to the complainant to deposit fixed service charges of Rs. 14,400/- on the basis of proposed electric load and variable service connection charges of Rs. 1,22,540/- on the basis of proposed electric service line more than the permissible limit as per the rates notified by the PSERC for releasing the electric connection for Atta Chakki under SP category. It is admitted that the complaint of the complainant filed before this Forum was partly allowed on 13-05-2014 but it is denied that during the proceedings of the said complaint, the OP no. 2 had been pressurizing the complainant to withdraw the said complaint. It is further replied that in fact, on 22-05-2014, the electric connection of the complainant bearing account no. SP28/0068 was checked vide checking report NO. 40/184 dated 22-05-2014 by AEE Bhangala S/D alongwith officials of Power Com in the presence of consumer and it was found that originally, the complainant obtained that connection for Atta Chakki which is non pollution category but on site that connection was being used for Rice Sheller. However, complainant refused to sign the said checking report . A specific note regarding this has been mentioned in the checking report. On 23-05-2014, a registered notice vide memo no. 1700 dated 23-05-2014 was sent to complainant detailing all the facts that if complainant is opting for polluting category industry then he should bring “No Objection Certificate” from PPCB and complete other necessary formalities and if he wants to run Atta Chakki then he should remove the Mini Sheller from that place within 7 days of receipt of this notice as per rules and regulations of Power com otherwise his connection will be disconnected. But complainant did not comply with the said notice. It is further replied that the fact of running Mini rice Sheller came to the notice of the OP only during checking dated 22-05-2014 which falls under polluting category. Therefore “No Objection Certificate” from the competent authority and other formalities are required to be completed as per rules and regulations of the OP. So, complaint filed by complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4. Both the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. C-1, letter Mark C-2, Mark C-3 to Mark C-5, copy of judgment Mark C-6 and closed the evidence.

5. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant , the OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Ex. OP-1, documents Ex. OP-2, memo Ex. OP-3, cheki register Ex. OP-4, register Mark OP-5, memo Mark OP-6, affidavit of Jagir Singh Ex. OP-7 and closed the evidence.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file.

7. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that in fact, the connection in question was not inspected in the presence of the complainant or any of his representatives. Further, no proper procedure had been followed by the OPs as per law before alleged checking and before issuance of notice in question. So, memo in question being wrong and illegal is liable to be quashed. Otherwise also, there are number of consumers who are running mini rice millers but the OP never asked them to produce the N.O.C from the Punjab Pollution Control Board. The action of the OP in asking him to produce NOC from PPCB is actuated by malice on account of filing of earlier complaint by the complainant against it. Since, complainant has suffered harassment and mental agony as a result of issuance of impugned memo therefore, he is entitled to the relief claimed.

8. Learned counsel for the OP has however repelled the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the complainant on the ground that complainant had obtained connection for running flour mills . However, connection of the complainant was checked on 22-05-2014 by AEE Bhangala S/D alongwith officials of Power Com in the presence of complainant and it was found that originally, he had obtained that connection for Atta Chakki which is non pollution category but on site that connection was being used for Rice Sheller. However, complainant refused to sign the said checking report . Resultantly, impugned memo was issued requiring him to produce NOC from PPCB in case he wants to run the rice sheller otherwise his connection would be disconnected. The question of grudge on account of decision in previous complaint filed by complainant does not arise at all. In this respect, counsel for the OP has relied upon Commercial Circular No. 19/2012.

9. We have anxiously considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record.

10. The fact of installation of electric connection for running atta chakki in favour of complainant by the OP is not disputed. It is the specific stand of the OP that in fact, on 22-05-2014, the electric connection of the complainant bearing account no. SP28/0068 was checked vide checking report NO. 40/184 dated 22-05-2014 by AEE Bhangala S/D alongwith officials of Power Com in the presence of consumer and it was found that originally, the complainant obtained that connection for Atta Chakki which is non pollution category but on site that connection was being used for Rice Sheller. However, complainant refused to sign the said checking report . A specific note regarding this has been mentioned in the checking report. Checking report aforesaid Mark OP-2 is proved by Jagir Singh, concerned AEE, Bhangala Sub Division by way of his duly sworn affidavit Ex.OP-7 . In the said checking report , there is a specific mention of the fact that consumer ( here complainant) refused to sign. This fact is vouchsafed from affidavit of Jagir Singh, AEE referred heretofore . Therefore, we do not find any reason to disbelieve him. Otherwise also, from the pleadings of the complainant in the complaint and his affidavit Ex.C-1, there does not remain any doubt that he is running mini rice sheller from the same connection which sub serves atta chakki, originally got installed by the OP. As per para no.4 of commercial circular no. 19/2012, NOC is required for polluting category and in case no NOC is furnished then OP can disconnect the connection . Impugned memo when seen in reference to the aforesaid commercial circular cannot be found fault with . Allegation of any grudge due to earlier decision of this Forum in the complaint filed by the complainant against the OP, in the given set of circumstances, cannot be over emphasized and given any weight. No evidence has been led by the complainant to prove discrimination . Complainant has failed to prove that mini rice sheller does not fall in polluting category. As a sequel to our aforesaid discussion, no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs is proved.

11. In view of our above observations and findings, the complaint filed by complainant is found to be meritless and as such the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced.

09.02.2015

 

(Mrs. Sushma Handoo) (Ashok Kumar )

Member                         President

SS