DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ROPAR
Consumer Complaint No.50 of 2022
Date of institution: 25.03.2022
Date of Decision:26.07.2022
M/s Ashwinder Stone Crusher, Village Manguwal, Post Office Sarsa Nangal, Tehsil & District Rupnagar through its Proprietor Jaswinder Pal Kaur aged about 41 years, wife of Narinder Singh, resident of Kotbala, Tehsil & District Rupnagar
…….Complainant
Versus
- Sub Divisional Office, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Kiratpur Sahib, Tehsil Sri Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar
- Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its CMD Patialan
……..Opposite Parties
QUORUM:
HON’BLE MR. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT
HON’BLE MRS. RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER
PRESENT:
Sh. Lachmi Singh Chandel, Adv. counsel for complainant
Sh. Manish Dharmani, Adv. For OPs
ORDER
RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT
The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the Opposite Parties on the ground that the complainant is running the above name crusher under the name and style of Ashwinder Stone Crusher, Village Manguwal, Post Office Sarsa Nangal, Tehsil & District Rupnagar and is the sole proprietor of the said crusher. The complainant is running this stone crusher for earning her livelihood from the said crusher except this complainant has no other source of her livelihood. The complainant having an electric connection for the run of the said stone crusher has been issued by the OPs bearing account No.R17MS170810X and the sanction load of the stone crusher was 100 KV. The complainant was regularly paying the electricity charges as well as overload charges to PSPCL well with time without any default. It is further alleged that in the month of February, 2021, the complainant had used extra load of 42.7 KW and had already paid Rs.3205/- on 23.2.2022 and in the subsequent months for March 2021, no extra load was used and therefore, zero payment was made till May 2021 and thereafter extra load of 3.22 was used and the petitioner paid Rs.2415/- on 23.6.2021 and in the month of July, 2021 zero extra load was used and in August 2021 extra load of Rs.32,6 KW was used and the petitioner paid Rs.24045/- then on 19.08.2021 in the month of September 2021 extra load was used and accordingly, payment was made. The complainant honestly paying the charges as per bill issued and as per the last bill, an amount of Rs.2,56,970/- was due for 04.02.2022. On 28.01.2022, the official of the OPs namely Er. Paramjit Singh (Add. SE ENFOR) and Er. Parbhat Sharma inspected the meter installed in the crusher of the complainant and the opposite party issued final assessment order for unauthorized used of electricity as per section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 and demanded Rs.14,31,984/- for use of overload and directed the complainant to deposit the amount forthwith. They never issued any notice to the complainant prior to the checking and the complainant or her representative were not present at the time of checking and they made inspection in the absence of the complainant, which against the rules and regulations of sale of electricity. It is further alleged that impugned order of final assessment has mentioned that a provisional assessment was made vide memo No.146 dated 31.1.2022 and thereafter impugned order dated 08.02.2022 was issued which is wrong, illegal and against the record and rules and regulations of sale of electricity. The complainant was making regular payments including the other charges whatever be mentioned in the electricity bill. The complainant lastly paid an amount of Rs.2,56,970/- as per the bill dated 04.02.2022 issued by the OPs. On 12.3.2022 the opposite parties wrongly and illegally temporarily disconnected the electricity connection for account No.R17M170810X, without intimation and without following the due process of law. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of Ops, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to withdraw provisional assessment notice dated 31.3.2022 and final assessment notice dated 8.2.2022 and not to recover an amount of Rs.14,31,984/- from the complainant and to permanently restore the electricity connection of the complainant and to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of physical, mental harassment and litigation charges and any other relief the Hon’ble Commission may deem fit be passed in favour of the complainant.
- Upon notice, the OP No.1 & 2 has filed reply taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is neither competent nor maintainable in the eyes of law; that the complainant is not running the above noted business for his livelihood as the purpose of the business is commercial; that this Hon’ble Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the complainant has not approached the Hon’ble Commission with clean hands; that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Hon’ble Commission; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is running the electric connection of the stone crusher in the load of 96.2 KW and demand of 100 KW and it is also admitted the fact that the complainant is running the account mentioned by the complainant in the complaint. It is stated that the electricity checking is always done with surprise checking and no notice is required for the same. The complainant firstly approached to the Permanent Lok Adalat in this matter as Ashwinder Singh etc Vs SDO where no injunction has been granted thereafter the complainant has filed the second case on the same matter without withdrawing the first one at the time of the appearance in the office. Rest of allegations leveled by the complainant against the OPs have been denied and prayed for dismissal the complaint.
4. In support of the complaint, the complainant has tendered various documents. On the other hand, the OPs also tendered certain documents in support of their version.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.
6. From the perusal of record, it stands established that matter in question is relating to unauthorized use of electricity. The learned counsel for the complainant has placed on record the bill/provisional assessment order/ show cause notice under provision of Reg. 36 of Supply Code-2014 and Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for unauthorized use of electricity – Assessment Order for payment of Rs.1431984/- on account unauthorized use of electricity. Ex.OP9 is copy of meter inspection report dated 28.01.2022 wherein it is observed that this is the case of unauthorized use of electricity. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while deciding the Civil Appeal No.5466 of 2012 titled “U.P. Power Corporation Limited & Ors. Versus Anis Ahmad” has observed that “A “complaint” against the assessment made by assessing officer under Section 126 or against the offences committed under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum.” So, once consumers are indulged in unauthorized use of electricity and for that, unauthorized use of electricity u/s 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 have been issued, the Consumer Forum (now Commission) has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints filed by consumers. In view of this observation, this matter is not cognizable by this Commission on account of unauthorized use of electricity as this Commission has no jurisdiction over the subject matter.
7. In view of above discussion, present complaint stands dismissed. As the main complaint case stands dismissed, consequently stay granted vide order dated 01.04.2022 by this Commission to the complainant is also vacated. Copy of order be issued to the parties free of costs as per law. File be consigned to record room.
Announced
July 26, 2022
(Ranjit Singh)
(Ranvir Kaur)
