| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA (PUNJAB)
CC No. 439 of 30-08-2011 Decided on : 14-02-2012
Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Vijay Kumar aged about 46 years, sole Prop. of M/s. Surya Rice Mills, village Ralla, District Mansa. ... Complainant
Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its M.D./Chairman A.E.E./S.D.O. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub-urban Sub Division, Maur, District Bathinda. ..... Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member
For the Complainant : Sh. Ish Kumar, counsel for the complainant For the Opposite parties : Sh. J.P.S. Brar, counsel for opposite parties.
O R D E R
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he is running Rice Mill/Sheller in the name of M/s. Surya Rice Mills at Village Ralla District Mansa and is holder of electric connection bearing A/c No. LS-11 (seasonal connection). He has been paying the bills as per rules and regulations of the PSPCL without any default on his part. He has been running the sheller to earn his livelihood and for his family members. As per rules of PSPCL, in the case of seasonal connection, a connection holder has to run his unit or to pay MMC (Minimum Monthly Charges) for a period of 4-1/2 months during the period Ist September to 31st May of relevant year. Accordingly, the connection of the complainant was given supply vide SCO No. 31/20611 dated 8-10-2007 effected on 12-10-2007 from all the three phases, but due to delayed season of 'Ziri' crop the complainant started the season/sheller from 28-11-2007 with prior intimation to the opposite parties. However, from 15-11-2007 to 31st May, he had run his unit/paid MMC to the opposite parties for 4-1/2 months as per bills/demand raised by the opposite parties and nothing was outstanding against the complainant regarding the period 1-9-2007 to 31-5-2008. The opposite parties issued a demand notice/letter bearing memo No. 1194 dated 23-6-2011 to the complainant raising a demand of Rs., 50,560/- on the pretext that the supply to the complainant was given on 12-10-2007 whereas he started the unit on 28-11-2007 and in this way, as per audit rules, the complainant is in arrears of MMC for a period of 48 days for 100 KVA supply. Vide said memo, the complainant was directed to deposit the said amount within 7 days failing action would be taken against him. Another demand notice/letter No. 1213 dated 24-6-2011 was also issued to the complainant raising a demand of Rs. 18,238/- from the complainant on the ground that at the time of preparing estimate, it was prepared for the lesser amount as the opposite parties have charged the amount for 300 meter cable whereas actual length of the cable was 580 meter. In this way, the total amount chargeable was to the tune of Rs. 1,25,309/- whereas the amount deposited by the complainant was Rs. 1,07,071/-. Hence, an amount of Rs. 18,238/- more on this account is chargeable from the complainant. He was asked to deposit the amount of both the notice i.e. Rs. 68,798/- within 7 days failing which action would be taken against him. On receipt of notices, the complainant approached the opposite parties and apprised them about the MMC paid by him for a minimum period of 4-1/2 months, the opposite party No. 2 assured the complainant that they would look into the matter. Thereafter the officials of the opposite parties visited the complainant and started threatening the complainant to deposit the demanded amount. The complainant assails the impugned demand of the opposite parties on the ground that no demand is due against the complainant regarding the seasonal period 1-9-2007 to 31-5-2008 or on account of estimate ; the outstanding, if any, has already become time-barred and the same cannot be recovered ; the opposite parties never raised any such demand nor issued any demand notice nor the same has been shown to the arrear/outstanding in the subsequent bills; no show cause notice was issued before raising the impugned demand and no opportunity of being heard was afforded to the complainant. The complainant alleged that due to adamant act and conduct of the opposite parties, he has suffered mental tension, loss of physical health and reputation for which he claims damages besides quashing of impugned memo. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint. The opposite parties filed their joint written reply and took preliminary objection that complainant is not running the electricity connection in question, he has transferred his entire rights to another person, as such he is not consumer. The opposite parties have pleaded that the complainant has been charged the amount to the tune of Rs. 18,238/- as Service Connection Charges and Rs. 50,650/- on the basis of minimum monthly charges for the period from 12-10-2007 to 28-11-2007 i.e. for 48 days. As per estimate No. 73282, 2007-2008, the length of the line for the connection was 580 meters and the complainant was entitled for exemption of 300 meters as per rules of the PSPCL and liable to pay for the remaining length of 280 meters. He is liable to pay for 280 meters @ Rs. 125/- per meter as variable charges i.e. Rs. 35,000/- (280 X 125 – 35,000/-) and further he is liable to pay Service Connection Charges for the length of 300 meters at load 120.412 KW X 750 i.e. Rs. 90,309/-. In this way, he is liable to pay the total amount of Rs. 1,25,309/- (Rs. 35,000 + Rs. 90,309= Rs. 1,25,309/-). He has already deposited Rs. 1,07,071/- and the remaining amount of Rs. 18,238/- has been demanded by the opposite parties. It has been pleaded that connection in question is a seasonal connection. The complainant is liable to pay MMC for the period 12-10-2007 to 28-11-2007 i.e. for 48 days. After the audit, the complainant was issued a supplementary bill for Rs. 68,798/- through letter No. 185 dated 8-1-2009. The complainant failed to pay the demanded amount, therefore a letter bearing memo No. 1194 dated 23-06-2011 for Rs. 50,560/- and memo No. 1213 dated 24-6-2011 for Rs. 18,238/- were issued to the complainant. The complainant did not pay the demanded amount. Thereafter the complainant was again issued memo No. 1328 dated 12-7-2011 for the amount i.e. Rs. 50,560/- and memo No. 1326 dated 12-7-2011 for the amount of Rs. 18,238/- but the complainant again did not pay the said amount. There is no question that amount is time barred because the connection in question is running even at present. The opposite parties have pleaded that the complainant is liable to pay Rs. 18,238/- as Service Connection Charges and Rs. 50,650/- on the basis of MMC for the period from 12-10-2007 to 28-11-2007. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. The allegation of the complainant is that he is holder of electric connection No. LS-11 which is a seasonal connection. As per rules of PSPCL in the case of seasonal connection, a connection holder has to run his unit or to pay MMC for a period of 4-1/2 months during the period Ist September to 31st May of relevant year. The connection of the complainant was given supply vide SCO No. 29/20611 dated 8-10-2007 effected on 12-10-2007 from all the three phases but due to delay season, the complainant started the sheller from 28-11-2007 with prior intimation to the opposite parties. From 15-11-2007 to 31st May he had run his unit/paid MMC for 4-1/2 months as per bills raised by the opposite parties and nothing was outstanding against the complainant regarding the period 1-9-2007 to 31-05-2008 whereas the opposite parties demanded Rs. 50,560/-vide memo No. 1194 dated 23-6-2011, which he is not liable to pay. The complainant has alleged that opposite parties have issued another demand notice vide letter No. 1213 dated 24-6-2011 raising demand of Rs. 18,238/- from him on the ground that at the time of preparing estimate, they have charged amount for 300 meters cable whereas actual length of the cable was 580 meters. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the connection in question is a seasonal connection as per Electricity Supply Regulation No. 82.5.1 of the PSPCL. The sheller is required to give 10 days prior notice before starting or closing their factory but the complainant has failed to do so. The complainant is liable to pay MMC for the period from 12-10-2007 to 28-11-2007 i.e. for 48 days which has been demanded by the opposite parties in subsequent bills and memos. Further more, the complainant is liable to pay Rs. 18,238./- as Service Connection Charges as detailed in written version of the opposite parties. The opposite parties have raised demand of Rs. 50,650/- vide memo No. 1194 dated 23-06-2011 on the ground that electricity supply was given to the complainant on 12-10-2007 and as per audit rules the complainant is in arrears of MMC for a period 48 days for 100 KVA supply. The complainant has alleged that the said arrear has become time barred and cannot be recovered from the complainant. A perusal of Ex. R-6 reveals that according to audit report the auditors have checked the accounts of the complainant and found that the Account bearing Nos. LS-8 to LS-11 are liable to pay the amounts. Vide said report, the complainant was found liable to pay Rs. 50,560/-. Immediately thereafter, the opposite parties issued memo No. 185 Ex. R-7 to the complainant enclosing therewith supplementary bill dated 19-1-2009 Ex. R-8 for the period from 12-10-2007 to 27-11-2007, but the complainant did not pay the said amount. Ultimately, the opposite parties issued final notice Ex. R-11 raising the impugned demand wherein he was asked to pay the said amount within 7 days otherwise action would be taken against him as per rules.
The demand of Rs. 18,238/- was raised from the complainant vide Ex. C-2 on the basis of report of auditors Ex. R-5. The relevant portion of Ex. R-5 is reproduced here under :- “A/c No. LS-11 M/s. Surya Rice Mills, Ralla )Load 120.412 KW) Length of wire 550+30 580 metrs minus 300 = 280 meters Expenses of wire 280 X 125 = 35000.00 Load 120.412 KW X 750 (SCC) = 90309.00 Total amount =125309.00 Already deposited amount =107071.00 Chargeable amount = 18238.00” The complainant has admitted the fact that at the time of release of connection, he has paid an amount of Rs. 1,07,071/-. Hence, as per aforesaid audit report, he is liable to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 18,238/- being service connection charges. The impugned demands were raised by the opposite parties as per reports of auditors. In general practice, the audit of the accounts of the offices is done periodically. As soon as the auditors pointed out about the due amount of the complainant, the opposite parties issued supplementary bills to the complainant but he did not pay the same. Hence, the contention of the complainant that the impugned demand is time barred, is not tenable. Rather on the other hand, it can be said that the complaint is time barred as the supplementary bills Ex. R-8 & Ex. R-9 were issued to the complainant on 9-01-2009 and he approached this Forum on 30-08-2011. A perusal of memo Nos. 1326 and 1328 both dated 12-07-2011 Ex. R-12 & Ex. R-13 respectively reveals that at the request vide letters dated 8-7-2011 Ex. R-14 & Ex. R-15 of the complainant, the opposite parties recommended his cases to be forwarded to DSC for deciding the matter by the committee constituted under CC No. 46/10, after deposit of 1/3rd of the disputed amount by the complainant. According to CC No. 46/2010 Ex. R-8, the period for deciding the matter above Rs. 50,000/- and upto Rs. 2,00,000/- is two months. Moreover, according to the Electricity Supply Regulation No. 82.5.1, the seasonal industries are required to give 10 days notice before starting and closing of the their factories. The Electricity Supply Regulation No. 82.5.1 is reproduced hereunder :- “Seasonal Industries : 82.5.1 The seasonal industries as given under Para 81.11.2 are required to give 10 days notice before starting and closing of their factories. For billing and levy of MMC to exclusive seasonal industries and mixed load seasonal industries refer para 81.11.3.” The Electricity Supply Regulation no. 81.11.2 reads as under :- “Approved Seasonal Industries are as under :- ....81.11.2.2 All rice shellers/huller mills except Modern hullers alongwith Atta Chakkis having sanctioned load upto 35 KW shall not be treated as seasonal industry but shall be covered under relevant general industry tariff.” The complainant has alleged in para No. 2 of this complaint that due to delayed season of 'Ziri' crop the complainant started the season/sheller from 15-11-2009 with prior intimation to the opposite parties A perusal of record reveals that complainant has not sent any such notice to the opposite parties before starting and closing of his factory whereas the opposite parties have placed on file Service Connection Order Ex. R-19 which proves that connection was released to the complainant on 12-10-2007. Moreover, the complainant firstly requested the opposite parties vide his letters dated 8-7-2011 Ex. R-14 & Ex. R-15 respectively for deciding his matter under CC No. 46/2010 but when the opposite parties recommended his cases vide letters Ex. R-12 and Ex. R-13 to be sent to DSC, he approached this Forum on 30-08-2011 where he failed to prove his version by leading cogent and convincing evidence. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.
Pronounced
14-02-2012 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President (Amarjeet Paul) Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur) Member
| |
