APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

PRONOUNCED ON :   3^rd OCTOBER  2017

O R D E R

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER

          This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 23.09.2010, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 1310/2004, “Narinder Kumar Jain vs. Punjab State Electricity Board”, vide which, while dismissing the said appeal, the order dated 17.09.2004, passed by the District Forum Ludhiana, dismissing consumer complaint No. 1488/19.12.2003, filed by the present petitioner, was upheld.

2.       Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant Narinder Kumar Jain is having a power electric connection bearing account No. HB16/0040 (SP) with a load of 19.20 kw, provided by the erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board, now known as Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL).  The complainant is stated to have installed one machine consisting of grinder, cutter and dana plastic (granules) machine and also employed one person for his help.  As stated in the consumer complaint, the complainant has been paying the electricity consumption charges regularly, but on 22.12.2003, he received a bill in which the opposite party (OP) raised a demand of ₹1,51,096/- under sundry charges.  On inquiry, he was told that these charges relate to the clubbing charges, as there was another electric connection No. HB16/0042 in the name of Suresh Kumar on the same premises and hence, the billing had been done on MS Tariff and difference of SP to MS from 1997.  It is the case of the complainant that there was no nexus between the two connections; Suresh Kumar had a separate entry towards main road and had separate premises fully constructed.  There was no entry from inside between both the premises.  The complainant stated that before sending the bill, no notice was given to them and no checking had been made.  The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs in raising demand of ₹1,51,096/- and sought directions that the said demand be quashed and OP should be directed to keep the status of tariff as S.P. instead of MS and refund the excess amount recovered alongwith interest @12% p.a. A penalty of ₹30,000/- and litigation cost of ₹5,500/- was also sought to be imposed on the OP.

3.       The complaint was resisted by the OP by filing a written statement before the District Forum in which they stated that the complainant was using the small power industrial connection with 19.20 KW load for commercial purpose and hence, he did not fall under the definition of consumer.  Further, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP, because the two connections HB16/0040 & HB16/0042 were checked by Senior Executive Engineer (Enforcement-III), Ludhiana on 23.03.2002.  It was reported that both the electric connections were intermixed with wires through common wall between the two connections.  These wires were covered and concealed with plastic bags/goods.  It was recommended that clubbing of these two connections be done and single point supply be arranged.  A notice bearing No. 969 – 970 dated 10.04.2002 was served on both the consumers and they were asked to get the electric connections clubbed.  The checking of the premises was again made by the Senior Executive Engineer on 23.04.2003 and according to the report of the checking, the audit party mentioned the amount of clubbing as ₹1,51,096/- including the electricity duty.  The OP stated that after clubbing of both the connections, they fell under the category of MS electric connection and hence, the demand of ₹1,51,096/- had been rightly raised against the complainant. 

4.       The District Forum after considering the averments of the parties dismissed the complaint vide their order dated 17.09.2004.  The District Forum held that the electricity was being used for commercial purpose and hence, the complainant could not be stated to be consumer.  Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the petitioner/complainant challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 23.09.2010.  The State Commission held that from the facts and circumstances on record, the petitioner/complainant/appellant had failed to prove that the premises in question were two distinct and different premises owned by two different persons.  The demand raised by the OP Electricity Board was in accordance with law.  The State Commission while passing their order did not discuss the issue as to whether the complainant was covered under the definition of ‘consumer’ or not.  Being aggrieved against the order of the State Commission, the complainant is before us by way of the present revision petition.

5.       During arguments before this Commission, the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant argued that the District Forum had passed their order merely on technical consideration as to whether the complainant was a consumer or not.  They had not discussed the merits of the case at all.  However, while deciding the appeal, the State Commission had decided the case on merits alone.  They should have remanded the matter to the District Forum for deciding the matter afresh, rather than taking a decision on their-own.  The learned counsel further stated that the two connections were separate from each other and the two premises had separate entries with a wall between them.  The complainant had no family relation or partnership with the holder of the other connection.       Referring to the contents of the consumer complaint, the learned counsel stated that as per the knowledge of the complainant, no checking of the premises was made by the officials of the OP.  Moreover, a copy of the report of the checking had not been provided to the complainant.  It had also not been mentioned in the written statement that inspection was made in the presence of Mr. Sanju, a representative of the complainant.  Referring to the observation of the State Commission in the impugned order that the complainant was not able to produce any evidence about his ownership of the premises in question, the learned counsel stated that the connection was in the name of the complainant only. 

6.       Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/OP has drawn attention to the entries made in the consumer checking register of the OP, in which it is stated that both Narinder Kumar Jain and Suresh Kumar were sons of Karori Lal Jain, meaning thereby that they were brothers.  The learned counsel stated that the checking of the premises in question was made in the presence of one Sanju who is a representative of the complainant.  The complainant had nowhere denied that Sanju was not present at the time of checking.  A copy of the report had also been provided to the said representative.  The learned counsel further stated that the revision petition should be dismissed, keeping in view the fact that there were concurrent findings passed by the consumer fora below.

7.       We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.

8.       The main issue that merits consideration in the matter is whether the extra demand made by the OP Electricity Board/Power Corporation Limited for payment of ₹1,51,096/- on account of clubbing of two connections is justified or not.  On record, there are copies of the checking report made by the Senior Executive Engineer (Enforcement) dated 20.03.2002.  It has been stated for connection No. HB16/0040 in the inspection report as follows:-

“In between both these connections, after putting the wire through common wall, the supply has been intermixed.  These wires have been concealed/ covered with plastic bags/goods and arrangement for single point supply be made.  There is a common office for both these connections and the supply and wires are also intermixed.”

9.       It has been stated in the checking report for connection No. HB16/0042, as follows:-

“The supply of both these connections is given after putting the wires through common walls meaning thereby that the above said load is got with the above said both the connections.  Action regarding clubbing be taken and single point supply be given”

10.     The copies of these reports in vernacular language shows that one Sanju Jain has signed these reports and obtained a copy of the same as well.  Further, the internal auditor of the OP has written a letter dated 09.10.2003 that a sum of ₹1,51,096/- be charged from the complainant including the electricity duty.  Although the complainant has stated that the said inspection was never conducted, the documentary evidence produced on behalf of the OP belies the version given by the complainant.  Moreover, the complainant has not been able to provide any explanation as to how the supply for the two connections had been inter-mixed.  The premises in question, could be separate, having separate entries, but since there is a common wall between the two, there could be the possibility of inter-mixing of the two connections.  In any case, the complainant has not been able to provide any evidence to controvert the allegations levelled by the OP regarding the clubbing of two connections.  The State Commission rightly relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case, “Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr. vs. Ashwani Kumar [2010 AIR-SCW-4825(SC)]”, in which, it has been made clear that the inspection report was a document prepared in exercise of official duty by the officers of the Corporation.  Once an act was done in accordance with law, the presumption was in favour of such act or document and not against the same.  The onus was upon the consumer to rebut by proper and cogent evidence that the report prepared by the officers was not correct.  As observed already, the inspection reports have been made in the presence of the representative of the petitioner Mr. Sanju and no solid evidence has come forward to rebut the support. 

11.     Based on the discussion above, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the State Commission.  It is a settled legal preposition that powers in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction should be used only, if there is a jurisdictional error or material defect in the orders passed by the consumer fora below.  This view has been expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in their judgment in “Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269]”.  In the present case, therefore, there is nothing on record to justify any modification in the orders passed by the consumer fora below.  This revision petition is therefore, ordered to be dismissed and the order passed by the State Commission is upheld.  There shall be no order as to costs.