BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.264 of 2017

      Date of Instt. 28.07.2017

      Date of Decision: 16.03.2020

Tajinder Singh Marwaha formerly proprietor of M/s Marwaha Engineering Works, New Railway Road, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through AEE/SDO, East Commercial Sub Division I, Near Pathankot Chowk, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Sh. Karnail Singh           (President)

Smt. Jyotsna                   (Member)

Present:       Sh. R. K . Arora, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. K. L. Dua, Adv. Counsel for the OP.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that he is proprietor of M/s Marwaha Engineering Works situated at New Railway Road, Jalandhar and at the time of inception of the firm, an electricity meter was got installed by the complainant in his name at the aforesaid address of the firm and the complainant had started the business of manufacturing of machine tools etc. to earn his livelihood. It was just like a petty workshop and the complainant and his family had always been dependent upon the earnings from the business as the complainant was having no other business for the source of earning. Everything was going very smooth up till January, 2016 and thereafter, due to drastically downfall in the business sector, the complainant suffered heavy losses and whereby monthly regular income of the complainant started coming down, whereas, the major expenses of the workshop like salaries of the helper, maintenance of machines and payment of electricity bills etc. remained the same. The electricity connection of medium supply with the sanctioned connection load of 38.890 KW was got installed by the complainant from the OP and the complainant had been regularly paying consumption charges as per the bills issued to him time to time. On account of major downfall into the business of the complainant, the complainant was not in need of such an electricity connection with a heavy sanctioned load, as such the complainant started asking the officials of OP for conversion of existing connection of medium supply into small supply connection with the sanction consumption load of 5 KW and in alternative installation of new small power supply connection in place of earlier connection of MS supply, but the concerned officials of the OP did not accede to the repeated requests and demands of the complainant.

2.                That the senior officer of the OP used to visit the complainant to collect the meter reading every month and the complainant made his above request before the said officer on his every visit and even he was given a written request for twice, which was duly acknowledged by him and the complainant was assured for the needful action in this regard. On the other hand, the OP kept on issuing electricity bills of medium supply and the complainant stopped making payment of electricity bills in order to compel the officials of OP to reduce the load from 38.890 KW into 5 KW and changing the connection of medium supply into small power supply. Although on account of major downfall of business, there was hardly any consumption of electricity, but as per the connection of medium supply with hefty connection load, the complainant was bound to pay the minimum charge of Rs.7332/- per month, even if there is any consumption of any single unit or not. In this way, the complainant has been asked to pay Rs.10,000/- to Rs.11,000/- for just about 100 units. Meaning thereby the complainant has been burdened to pay about more than Rs.100/- for per unit, whereas on the other hand, the Government of Punjab is making propaganda that industries/workshops will be charged at Rs.5/- per unit. Even otherwise, the existing per unit rate of the electricity consumption for commercial and industrial unit never above Rs.8/- per unit. But in the present case of the complainant, in the event of low consumption with heavy sanctioned load, the complainant has been burdened to pay more than Rs.100/-. Repeated requests of the complainant for change of connection from MS to SP supply, otherwise disconnect the connection and installed a new connection of small supply, but the said request was not entertained and as such the complainant stopped making payment of electricity charges.

3.                That inspite of non-payment of electricity bills, the officials of OP did not disconnect the connection of the complainant, whereas the complainant had stopped making the payment of electricity charges with a view that the OP will disconnect the connection of the complainant and would get installed a new connection of small supply after clearing the dues of earlier electricity connection of medium supply. The officials of the OP did nothing in regard to change of electricity supply or did not disconnect the connection and now in the last month, complainant got surprised to have received a bill dated 19.06.2017 of Rs.2,93,780/- and soon thereafter the officials of OPs disconnected the supply of electricity without any prior notice to the complainant in this regard. The electricity consumption bills of the complainant since January, 2016 need to be overhauled on the basis of per unit rate instead of connection load/load factor especially when there was hardly any consumption of electricity by the complainant on account of major downfall in the business of the complainant and accordingly, the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to overhaul the electricity bills of the complainant since January, 2016 till disconnections of electricity supply amounting to Rs.2,93,928/- and to charge the complainant on the basis of per unit consumption rate instead of charging minimum bill from the complainant or on the basis of sanctioned connection load to enable the complainant to pay his genuine liability and further, OP be directed to install a new connection of small power supply in place of existing MS connection. OP be also directed to pay compensation and damages amounting to Rs.50,000/- on account of giving financial and mental harassment to the complainant and OP may also be burdened for damages on account of illegal disconnection of electricity supply of the complainant and further, OP be directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

4.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the connection is for commercial purpose having sanctioned load of 38.890 KW and it was used for the manufacturing purposes by employing good number of persons. So, once the connection which is MS Connection and was used for commercial purpose and as such, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint and complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. It is further averred that no cause of action accrued to the complainant to file the present false and frivolous complaint. It is further alleged that the complainant has not made the payments of the Regular Electricity Consumptions Bills, since 2016 as such the amount has inflated. The payment is with regard to the consumption of electricity only and complainant is legally bound to pay the same and further alleged that the complaint is false and frivolous, the same is dismissed with compensatory costs of Rs.10,000/-. On merits, it is admitted that an electric meter is installed in the premises of the complainant and it is categorically denied that the complainant started asking the officials of the OP for conversion of existing connection of medium supply into small supply connection with the sanction consumption of 5 KW and in alternative installation of new small power supply connection in place of earlier connection of MS and further submitted that no such alleged written request was ever made, nor copy of same application has been supplied by the complainant. It is further submitted that the disconnection of the electricity connection is due to the fault of the complainant, who himself stopped making the payment of the electricity bills. The other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

5.                Replication not filed.

6.                In order to prove his case, the complainant alongwith his counsel tendered into evidence his own affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence.

7.                Similarly, counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OPA and closed the evidence.             

8.                We have heard the argument from learned counsel for the complainant as well as counsel for the OP and also gone through the case file very minutely.

9.                Precisely, the case of the complainant qua installation of electricity connection having load of 38.890 KW in the premises of the complainant is admitted. It is also admitted that a bill for an amount of Rs.2,93,780/- was issued on 19.06.2017 to the complainant.

10.              Now, we have to analyze the allegations of the complainant whether the same having any authenticity or having some proof, for that purpose, we will discuss the claim of the complainant as alleged in the complaint. First of all, the complainant alleged that he is running a business of manufacturing of tools, but the said business was drastically downfall and due to which the complainant started suffering heavy loss and accordingly, he alleged that, he make request to the officials of the OP that he was not in need of such electric connection with a heavy sanction load and the same may be converted into sanction consumption load of 5 KW and complainant also alleged that he make such oral request as well as given twicely in writing and further alleged that if he is not consuming any electricity unit, even then he was forced to pay the minimum charges of Rs.7332/- per month and further created a controversy in regard to rate of per units. He alleged that the OPs are charging Rs.100/- per units from him, whereas the rate of per unit is not more than 8 rupees and further took a plea that when his request was not exceeded by the OP, then he stopped making payment of the electricity bills with an intention that the OP will disconnect his connection, but the OP did not to do so and further challenged the bill dated 19.06.2017 for an amount of Rs.2,93,780/- being on higher side, the said bill is not as per consumption of the electricity, rather it is on the basis of load factor.

11.              We have sympathetically considered the all allegations and find that the OP has no concern with the downfall in the business of the complainant because the OP has never given assurance that his business will not be downfall, rather the OP simply provided electricity supply for smooth running of the business of the complainant and in lieu of that the OPs are charging the price of the electricity consumed by the complainant and further whatsoever the rules and regulations of the OP qua charging of minimum amount if even any units are consumed by the consumer and further the rate of the per unit is not only for the complainant, rather it is for the general public, whatsoever charges is being taken by the OP from other public, the same are applicable on the complainant, but on the pretext that the business of the complainant has been reduced, the complainant cannot allege that the OP be restrained from charging lesser rate of per unit from the complainant and further complainant himself admitted that he himself stopped the payment of the bills of electricity and if so, then the amount of the electricity consumption bills must be accumulated on every month and ultimately, it become a huge amount like Rs.2,93,780/- as come in the bill dated 19.06.2017. It is not excessive amount because if the complainant is not paying for a long time of the electricity charges, then he has to pay the same at the same rate on which electricity connection was installed in the premises of the complainant, the complainant cannot ask or make a request that due to downfall in business, the rate of the electricity i.e. per unit may be reduced for the complainant. However, we are agree with the complainant that the OP is bound to disconnect the connection of the complainant or on the request of the complainant to convert the heavy load into small load as per the rules of the electricity board, but for that purpose, the complainant has to apply according to rules and regulations, on the prescribed form alongwith requisite fee, but simply stating that he asked orally number of times, is not acceptable or having any legs, whether this fact of the complainant is true one or not. Everyone can say I make oral request, but we are of the opinion that on oral request, the load cannot be reduced, until a written request on the prescribed form is not submitted. The complainant also falsely and illegally alleged in the complaint that he gave two written request also, if so, then its copy must be placed on the file, but there is no copy has been brought on the file by the complainant. So, with these observations, we are of the opinion that the complainant himself failed to establish the allegations as made in the complaint, if so, then we find that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

12.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated                                       Jyotsna                           Karnail Singh

16.03.2020                              Member                          President