DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 96 of 26.2.2019

                                      Decided on:                   20.12.2022

M/s Panesar Agriculture Industries, Patiala Road Nabha, District Patiala through its Proprietor Jagmeet Singh son of Sukhdev Singh.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.(Powercom), Head Office: Mall Road, Patiala through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.
2. Assistant Engineer, Sub Division Ghamrauda, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (Powrcom), Patiala.
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division Ghamrauda, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (Powercom),Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Sh. S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Sh.G.S.Nagi,Member    

ARGUED BY

                                       None for the complainant.

                                      Ms.Anu Garg, counsel for OPs.                                             

 ORDER

                                      S.K.AGGARWAL,PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint is filed by M/s Panesar Agriculture Industries through its Proprietor Jagmeet Singh son of Sukhdev Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act).
2. It is averred in the complaint that complainant is consumer of commercial electricity connection bearing account No.SP54-0205A. It is further averred that in the month of January, 2018,the OPs checked the site and  found  the connection of being NRS and after coming to know, the complainant got the same changed from NRS to SP connection. It is further averred that on 15.3.2018, the complainant received a notice amounting to Rs.70,775/- on account of connection being NRS and OPs deducted the amount of Rs.6064/- already paid by the complainant on 8.2.2018 and wrongly demanded an amount of Rs.64,711/-.The complainant challenged the said notice by depositing  Rs.19,500/-on 9.7.2018  i.e. 25% of the disputed amount .It is further averred that the matter of the complainant was referred to the Disputes Settle Committee, who without hearing the complainant passed a vague order dated 31.7.2018 stating therein that ‘the matter  be reviewed by the competent authority’. It is further averred that the complainant again received a notice No.23 dated 3.1.2019 demanding Rs.45,196/-, which is totally illegal, null and void. Consequently, prayer for acceptance of the complaint has thus been made.
3. Upon notice, OPs appeared through their counsel and filed the written statement taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no cause of action; that the complaint is based on false and frivolous facts and the complainant has not come with clean hands.
4. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is consumer of commercial electricity connection bearing a/c No.SP54-0205A installed at his premises .It is averred that the connection of the complainant was released as SP category but on checking it was found that the firm was using the said connection unauthorisedly under NRS category, the premises was being used as showroom of New Holland Tractor Company.
5. It is further averred that bill of Rs.99391 as per notice / memo No.25 dated 12.1.2018 was issued to the complainant against which he filed his objections.  Notice was issued to the complainant to appear before the OPS on 9.2.2018, where he submitted the lease agreement dated 23.11.2017 with the Holland Tractor Company. Thereafter the consumer was charged the U.U.E. amount from 22.11.2017 and the bills were revised from SP category to NRS category. Then the complainant moved an application for change of category of connection from SP to NRS category and accordingly the SP account was permanently disconnected vide PDCO No.98/2061 dated 21.2.2018.Thereafter, the bills for actual reading were issued. The complainant deposited Rs.6064/-on 8.2.2018 and the notice of remaining amount of Rs.64711/- was issued on 15.3.2018.Thereafter on the request of the complainant, his case was put up before the Dispute Settlement Committee on 31.7.2018 where the Forum found being not competent to decide the case, asked the complainant to review his case from the competent authority and thereafter the complainant appeared before OPs No.2&3 to review the case. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, the OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. In order to prove his case, ld. counsel for the complainant produced Ex.CA affidavit of Jagmeet Singh,Prop.,  alongwih documents, Ex.C1 copy of electricity bill history, Ex.C2 copy of application, Ex.C3 copy of notice, Ex.C4 copy of receipt dated 8.2.2018,Ex.C5 copy of receipt dated 9.7.2018, Ex.C6 copy of order,Ex.C7 copy of notice dated 3.1.2019 and closed the evidence.
7. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs produced Ex.OPA affidavit of Er.Jagtar Singh, AE, SDO Sub Division Ghamroda, PSPCL alongwith documents Ex.OP1 copy of A&A form and affidavit,Ex.OP2 copy of application for change of category of connection,Ex.OP3 copy of self declaration/undertaking given by the complainant,Ex.OP4 copy of permanent disconnection order,Ex.OP5 copy of record of actual meter readings,Ex.OP6 copy of detail of bill,Ex.OP7  copy of letter No.551 dated 15.3.2018,Ex.OP8 copy of notice dated 15.3.2018,Ex.OP9 copy of request by complainant to put up his case in DSC,Ex.OP10 copy of letter of recommendation by SDO, Ex.OP11 copy of letter of recommendation by Sr.EXE Engg.Ex.OP12 copy of order,Ex.OP13 copy of complaint by complainant to OPs No.2&3,Ex.OP14 copy of bill dated 3.1.2019 and closed the evidence.
8. None appeared on behalf of the complainant to argue the case on behalf of the complainant. We have heard ld. counsel for OPs and also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
9. The question before this Commission is whether the notice for Rs.64771/- issued by OPs to the complainant is in order or not?
10. The complainant is having a SP connection bearing account No.SP54-0205A for which an agreement Ex.OP1was entered into between the complainant and the service provider, PSPCL on 27.6.2012 and the averment of Ld. counsel for complainant that the connection is a commercial connection is not true. At the time of the said agreement, an affidavit duly attested was given by the complainant wherein he had deposed that he will use the said connection for manufacturing only and will not use it for repair works. The connection of the complainant was released under SP category
11. The ld.counsel for the complainant has further averred that the complainant was not intimated /advised about the category of the connection at the time of the release of the connection. This averment is also not acceptable as the complainant has deposed that he will use the said connection for manufacturing only at the time of release of the said connection and was well aware of the fact that the connection is of SP category.
12. The said connection of the complainant was checked on 9.1.2018 as per letter, Ex.OP10 and it was found that the complainant was using the said connection for NRS purposes whereas the connection was released under SP category. A notice Ex.OP8 under unauthorized use of electricity (UUE) for Rs.64711/- was issued to the complainant. The complainant vide self declaration Ex.OP3 has declared that he had leased the premises where the SP connection was in operation to M/s New Holland Tractor Company on 22.11.2017 for running a showroom.
13. Since the connection was under SP category and the premises were leased to M/s Holland Tractor Company for operation of a showroom, which falls under NRS category, as such the connection was treated as unauathorized use of electricity. On receipt of notice,Ex.OP8, the complainant had approached the Dispute Settlement Committee of the OPs, who vide its order dated 31.7.2018,Ex.OP12 had held that , since it is a case of unauthorized use of electricity, as such the committee is not competent to deal with the matter as per the provisions of Section 127 of Indian Electricity Act,2003 and the case can be reviewed by the competent authority as per the Act. The complainant has not denied the fact that the connection released under SP category was used for NRS purposes. Furthermore, the complainant himself had given self declaration that the said connection was used for NRS purposes from 22.11.2017 when the premises were leased to M/s New Holland Tractor Company for operation of a showroom.
14. In view of the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that this is a case of unauthorized use of electricity and as per the specific provisions of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 under Section 127, according to which the appeal lies with the appellate authority as specified by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission. Thus,  this Commission has no jurisdiction to  deal with the cases of unauthorized use of electricity and the complaint of the complainant is dismissed accordingly. Parties are to bear their own costs.    

PRONOUNCED

DATED:20.12.2022     

                                          G.S.Nagi                                 S.K.AGGARWAL

                                           Member                                  President