P.S.E.B. vs S.HARJINDER SINGH

IT is an appeal against the order dated 26.3.1999 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (hereinafter called the District Forum).

BRIEF facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant is running his factory with electric connection bearing Account No. MS-18. A separate industry known and styled as M/s. G.S. Rice and General Mills is being run with electric connection bearing Account No. MS-19. Both the factories have their own separate premises and are being run by their separate concern. Premises of both the factories are physically separate from each other and are fed from separate electric lines. Premises of M/s. Karam Singh Harjinder Singh and that of M/s. G.S. Rice and General Mills are separated by a passage in between them and there is no intermingling of wiring as well and both the factories are being run and are doing business independent of each other. Opposite party had issued a notice to the complainant directing him to club two connections within five days. Similarly, the Flying Squad of the opposite party had inspected the factory of the complainant on 12.12.1997 and directed the complainant to get the two connections clubbed. The complainant did not agree to the proposal of the opposite party. Hence a complaint was filed before the District Forum seeking the following relief : (i) Directions to the opposite party not to club the two connections and to withdraw the notice vide which the complainant has been asked to get the two connections bearing account No. MS-19 of M/s. G.S. Rice and General Mills with electric connection bearing account No. MS-18 clubbed. (ii) Compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. (iii) Rs. 5,000/- as costs of proceedings. (iv) Any other relief..

Reply was filed by the opposite party on notice being served, in which the following preliminary objections were taken before the District Forum : (1) That the present complaint is not legally maintainable as there is no deficiency of service for unfair trade practice towards the opposite party and as such this Hon''ble Court of District Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present matter. (2) That the present complaint is pre-mature as the representation made by the complainant is till pending and no order on it has been passed and as such, the Hon''ble District Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint. (3) That the Opposite party has acted in the discharge of his official duties and in compliance with the commercial instructions issued by the Punjab State Electricity Board and which being statutory in nature and the very factum of the legality of the same cannot be adjudicated upon this Consumer Forum.

On merits, it was stated in the reply that two factories with two electric connections bearing account Nos. MS-18 and MS-19 were being run by the blood relation in the same premises and the other factory with electric connection bearing account No. MS-19 was being run by Gagandeep Singh in the same premises at Tarn Taran Road, Amritsar. It is alleged that the functioning and business of both the factories were joint and both the factories were carrying on commercial activities in the same premises and as such opposite party was authorised and competent to club the two connections. It was further alleged that the consumer had fraudulently and illegally took two electric connections bearing account Nos. MS-18 and MS-19 to escape from higher tariff, which was actually applicable to the total load being used by the two concerns. It was, therefore, prayed in the reply that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

AFTER hearing the arguments and after having gone through the documents, the District Forum was of the considered view that the clubbing was not legally permissible and the notice served by the opposite party upon the complainant was held to be illegal. Notice was set aside and a direction was made to the opposite party not to club the two connections without the consent of the complainant and complaint was allowed with costs of Rs. 500/-. Hence this appeal We do not consider it necessary to go into the facts of the case as the complaint could be decided on the basis of preliminary objections taken by the opposite party before the District Forum.

IT has been specifically stated in para No. 2 of the reply of the opposite party that the complaint was premature as the representation made by the complainant was still pending and no order on it had been passed and as such the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the complaint. It is an admitted fact that only a notice was issued to the complainant by the opposite party to get the two connections clubbed. Their representation before the opposite party was pending and no actual order of clubbing was passed by the opposite party. In these circumstances, in our considered view, the District Forum had no jurisdiction to quash the notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant for clubbing the two connections. District Forum could not act beyond jurisdiction vested in it under the Consumer Protection Act. District Forum has acted in the manner as if it had got the powers of a High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India Directions issued to the opposite party by the District Forum are, thus, set aside being beyond its powers. Consequently, this appeal is allowed with costs and the order dated 26.3.1999 of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint consequently stands dismissed. Costs are quantified at Rs. 2,000/- Appeal allowed with costs.