PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs MOHINDER SINGH

THIS Revision Petition is against the majority order of the State Commission of Punjab at Chandigarh passed on the 27th of May, 1993 in First Appeal No. 12 of 1991.

BY the majority order, the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint was set aside and the appeal was accepted. The Opposite Party Board was directed to charge the complainant revision petitioner for the electricity supplied to the tubewell for agricultural purposes at the A.P.-(Agricultural Power) rates and not S.P. (Special Power) rates in excess of the A.P. rates with interest at 18%. It also awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant. The facts of the case briefly are that the complainant had applied for agricultural power supply connection under general category in 1982 and made the requisite deposit with the Electricity Board. The electric supply connection was sanctioned in May, 1990 when the necessary demand notice for making deposit and security was issued. The connection for the tubewell was actually given in July, 1990 and he was billed for at the S.P. rate subsequently. The precise date of the bill is not available in the paper book (but it was paid on 17th January, 1991).

THE dispute before the Consumer Forums is whether the Opposite Party Board can legitimately charge the S.P. rate for supply of power though the power is actually used for agricultural purposes and was sanctioned as such.

THE pleas of the Opposite Party Electricity Board is that the complainant was given power from the urban feeder which was nearby to the tubewell for irrigating the agricultural lands. Supply from the rural feeder on the other hand, would have been required installation of 1.635 kms. of 11 K.V. line. This would have necessitated the consumer having to bear the cost of 0.635 Kms. of supply line. This would have cost approximately Rs. 30,000 to 35,000 to the complainant for getting power from the rural feeder. In this context, he preferred to get power from the urban feeder which the Opposite Party Board supply only at S.P. tariff. The President of the State Commission in his minority judgment observed that the relief sought for by the complainant is regarding the liability to pay power charges at the A.P. tariff rate. According to the minority order such a relief cannot be granted under Section 14(1) of the Consumer Protection Act; dispute regarding appropriate tariff is not a dispute relating to deficiency in service in respect of which alone the relief can be sought for and granted under the Act by a Redressal Forum.

THE majority view, however, was in favour of the complainant on the following grounds: (i) The S.D.O. of the State Electricity Board claim that he had informed the complainant applicant that he would have to bear the cost of the line of Rs. 30,000 to 35,000 for about one K.M. if he wanted supply from the rural feeder at the A.P. rate. It, however, wanted to get power from the nearby urban feeder, he would have to pay for the power consumption at the S.P. tariff rate. The S.D.O. appears to have communicated this Condition to the complainant orally. More importantly, affidavit was filed by the S.D.O. before the District Forum in support of his averment. (ii) Other agriculturalists had also been given electric connection for tubewell purposes from the same urban feeder but they are being charged at the A.P. tariff and not at the S.P. tariff. (iii) The Opposite Party Board by its commercial circular No. 14/93 has now down that prospective consumers whose agricultural land is located in urban area and supply from the rural feeder is not possible might be given connection from the urban feeder on metered supply basis under A.P. tariff. In other words, the claim of the complainant that he be charged at the A.P. tariff only is also covered by the latest policy decision of the Opposite Party Electricity Board. (iv) The tubewell connection was given to the complainant for agricultural purposes in July, 1990. It was only on 21st August, 1990 that a circular No. 44/90 was issued by the electricity Board prescribing levy of the charges for supply of electricity at the S.P. rate where the supply is from the urban feeder. According to the majority view of the State Commission such executive instructions regarding tariff applicable are only prospective in nature and could not be applied retrospectively. As the power connection has been given to the complainant prior to 21st of August, 1990, the billing could not be at the S.P. tariff in respect of the complainant keeping in view the fact that other agricultural consumers were also been charged at the A.P. rate for supply from the same urban feeder.

THE Opposite Party Electricity Board in its revision petition has not challenged these observations and findings in the majority view of the State Commission. The primary ground of attack on this majority view is that the policy of the Opposite Party Board is that old connection holders who want to continue the electric connection for agricultural purposes from the urban feeder and had been paying as per S.P. tariff would have to pay at the rate of Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 35,000 for supply of power from the rural feeder. The more substantial point, however, is contained in the minority view of the President of the State Commission whether the power supplied be billed at the A.P. tariff or S.P. tariff can be the subject of a consumer complaint. The President has also cited and relied on the orders of this Commission that the Consumer Forums can grant only such reliefs as specified under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. He has further held that the question whether A.P. tariff or S.P. tariff is to be levied does not relate to any deficiency in service in respect of which a relief can be sought. We have duly considered these aspects. In our opinion the decision of this Commission relied on by the learned President are distinguishable on facts. However, it will be evident from the majority view that there is merit in the contention of the complainant and that he is legally liable to pay only at the A.P. tariff and that there will be discrimination in the matter of billing and that the Board''s decision of August, 1990 to charge such consumers at S.P. tariff cannot be justly applied retrospectively. Illegal insistence on payment at the higher tariff would result in denial of service on the terms that are applicable. In view of this, we feel that it will not be in the interests of justice if we are to interfere with the impugned order of the State Commission in the exercise of our revisional power. The Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.