DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.613 of 2019

                                                Date of institution:  02.05.2019                                              Date of decision   :  04.06.2019

Jindal Agro Mills Pvt Ltd through its Director Sh. Atul Jindal, M/s Jindal Agro Mills Pvt Ltd, 13 Km Stone , Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana

…….Complainant

Versus

1.     Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, Ropar Circle Samrala Division, Sub Div. Kohara, through SDO having  its office at Phagwara-Mohlai Express Highway, Bal Sanda, Rupnagar, Punjab-140001 .

2.     The Lokpal (Ombudsman). Electricity Punjab, 66 KV Grid Sub Station, Plot No. A-2, Industrial Area, Phase 1 SAS Nagar, Mohali (Pb).

                                                      ……..Opposite Parties        

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:   Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:    Shri Ajay Pal Singh , counsel for complainant.

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

               Complainant was using large supply category connection (General Industry) with sanctioned load of 494.026/495 KVA under Samrala Division of PSPCL.  So complainant claims himself to be a consumer because electricity used for self consumption and there is no commercial scope behind consumption. Complainant applied for reduction of load from 495 KVA to 389 KVA by request for change of category from general industry to induction furnace vide application dated 04.09.2014 which was sanctioned by Senior Executive Engineer DS Division, PSPCL Samrala on 07.10.2014. Reduction of load was effected on 08.01.2015. Complainant installed induction furnace and started work in the industry. However, during billing cycle between January, 2015 to March, 2016 bills continued to be raised as per existing load and category of connection. In April, 2016 it came to the notice of Kohara Sub Division of PSPCL that bills raised between January, 2015 to March, 2016 were raised on the basis of old load and change in nature of industry was not reflected. Revised bill statement dated 19.05.2016 for Rs.5,30,172/-  was again prepared for the above said billing cycle period of January, 2015 to March, 2016. Complainant was required to deposit this amount along with surcharge and interest, but complainant did not agree.  Appeal was preferred in the Forum of Redressal Consumer Grievance of PSPCL, Patiala and same vide order dated 04.08.2017 upheld the demand. Appeal before the Lokpal (Ombudsman) Electricity Punjab was filed, who passed order dated 06.03.2018.   Lokpal (Ombudsman) modified earlier order dated 04.08.2017 for concluding that petitioner should be charged of difference in tariff rates and MMC applicable to PIU instead of General Industry for period from January,2015 to March, 2016. Officials of the OP shown lackadaisical approach by not correcting the bills. In case of furnace industry the cost of power was the major element of  cost and as such it is claimed that after period of more than 15 months the complainant cannot be asked to cough out huge difference of Rs.5,30,172/- as per demand. By claiming that OPs adopted unfair trade practice or are deficient in providing services, request made for setting aside demand of Rs.5,30,172/- . 

2.             Arguments heard.  From the perusal of complaint itself, it is made out that earlier sanctioned load for large supply category connection was of 494.026/495 KVA, but same load stood reduced to 389 KVA by changing the category from general industry to induction furnace.  Complainant took up the matter with Ombudsman and Grievance Cell of PSPCL, but he is not satisfied with those orders and that is why he has filed this complaint.

3.             As per ratio of case titled as MG Agro Foods Vs. PSPCL and others 2014(2) CLT 215 (Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab), holder of electricity connection having sanctioned load of 244.872 KVA for an industrial unit cannot be considered as consumer in view of Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act because said load not availed for earning livelihood, but is always availed for earning huge profits. In the case before us, sanctioned load even after reduction is 389 KVA and same is much more than that of the sanctioned load found in the above reported case and as such even if the complainant may have mentioned in the complaint that the said load availed for self consumption, despite that inference of its use for non commercial purpose cannot be drawn because Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab in the above referred case has held that availing of sanctioned load of 244.872 KVA for an industry is always availed for earning huge profits. Ratio of that case fully applicable to the facts of the present case and as such certainly complainant cannot be treated as consumer.

4.             Counsel for complainant has placed reliance on ratio of case titled as Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation & Ors. Vs. Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2009 (2) UJ SC 697 for arguing that even a private company is a person contemplated under section 2 (1) (d) read with section 2 (1) (m) of the Consumer Protection Act and as such consumer complaint is maintainable. However, after going through Para 24 of this cited case, it is made out that expression does not include a person, who avails of services of supply of electricity for any commercial purpose because definition of Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) has been amended by Act 62 of 2002. So it is obvious that the case cited by counsel for complainant pertains to interpretation of consumer definition under Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, as the same stood prior to amending Act 62 of 2002. However, after amending Act 62 of 2002, definition of consumer has been changed by inserting words “it does not include a person who avails such services for any commercial purpose” in sub clause (ii) of Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act. While taking note of this situation, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as M/s. EconomicTransport Organisation Vs. M/s. Charan Spinning Mills (P) Limited, 2010 (1) CPJ (IV) (SC) has held that if after amendment of definition of Consumer, through amending Act 62 of 2002, which came into force w.e.f.  15.03.2003, services of the carrier availed for any commercial purpose, then the person availing services will not be a consumer and consumer complaint will not be maintainable. However, amendment referred above not to apply to the complaints filed before amendment. As the present complaint has been filed after coming into force of amending Act 62 of 2002, and as such in view of the fact that electricity connection in question availed for commercial purposes, complainant is not consumer within meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, as stood after amendment of Act 62 of 2002. Being so, this consumer complaint is not maintainable and the same merits dismissal at admission stage itself. 

5.             As a sequel of above discussion, complaint dismissed at admission stage itself.  Certified copy of the order be supplied to the complainant free of cost and thereafter file be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

June 04, 2019

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

                                                       (Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member