PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs RAJ BANSAL

IT is an appeal against the order dated 28.6.2002, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar (hereinafter called the "District Forum").

BRIEF facts stated in the complaint are that Raj Bansal respondent (complainant before the District Forum) (hereinafter referred to as the "complainant") was consumer of appellant (opposite party No. 1 before the District Forum), hereinafter called the "opposite party No. 1", was in possession of connection No. MS-67 Medium supply for running his cotton ginning factory at Muktsar. The complainant''s industry was of seasonal nature as per the Rules of the Electricity Board. It was stated in the complaint that the complainant could not run his industry/factory due to non-availability of cotton. The bill sent by the opposite parties to the complainant for the period 3/99 to 5/99 for Rs. 39,459/-, according to the complainant, was illegal and without any basis and was, thus, a deficiency in service and unfair practice on the part of the opposite parties, particularly in view of CE Commercial, Patiala''s letter dated 9.12.1998, indicating that in Muktsar district, MMC from cotton ginning factory was to be taken for only three months in the season year September, 1998 to May, 1999, as the factory did not function. The MMC had already been paid by the complainant up to February, 1999 and from March, 1999 to May, 1999, the opposite parties could not claim the same. It was ultimately prayed in the complaint that refund of Rs. 39,459/- along with interest @ 18% per annum be made to the complainant and Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs. 4,000/- as litigation expenses be paid to him. The opposite parties filed a written statement. Preliminary objections were taken that the connected case titled Jiwan Bansal v. Punjab State Electricity Board, was pending in the Court of Shri Nirmal Singh, PCS, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Muktsar with regard to clubbing of two industries in the same premises. The Civil Court was likely to decide the dispute and the proposition involved in this behalf. It was then stated in the reply that since the complainant had already deposited the amount in dispute, he had no right to file the complaint. On merits, it was stated in the reply by the opposite parties that once the electric energy was switched on, it could not be said that the cotton factory did not function. The clubbed connection LS-11 as required by the two factories in the same premises was made to run on 6.11.1998 vide SJO No. 30/26479, dated 26.10.1998. It was then stated that the complainant could not run the two connections, because two separate units under the rules were got clubbed on the request of M/s. Jiwan Rice Mills and the complainant on 18.5.1999 vide SJO No. 128/26479, dated 17.5.1999. It was then stated in the reply that the complainant had never informed the opposite parties that they were not running the cotton factory during the period 1998-99. The remaining facts had also been denied and a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

After perusal of the pleadings of the parties and the documents filed and after hearing the arguments of the Counsel for the parties, the District Forum allowed the complaint and issued a direction to the opposite parties, which reads as under: "to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs. 39,459/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till its refund to the complainant. The opposite parties shall also pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation, Rs. 5,500/- as litigation expenses and Rs. 5,000/- as mental tension and harassment. This direction be complied with by the opposite parties within two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order."

Hence this appeal.

WE have heard the Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records with their assistance. The District Forum allowed the complaint on the basis of Memo No. 22044/CC/T/2/Rev/Indl dated 19.4.1999, according to which it was decided to reduce 4- months minimum period for billing/levy of MMC in respect of cotton ginning factories of Bhatinda District to three months for the current seasonal period also (i.e., from 1.9.1998 to 31.5.1999). As, according to the District Forum, the opposite parties could not furnish any proof that the connection of the complainant was working for the above-said period, billing the complainant for that period by the opposite parties was held to be illegal and against the above mentioned memo. In our view, neither the District Forum has interpreted the memo dated 19.4.1999 correctly nor it has taken into consideration the plea of the opposite parties taken in their written statement that once the electric energy was switched on by the complainant, it could not be said that the cotton factory did not function the two clubbed connections LS-11 as required by the two factories in the same premises was made to run on 5.11.1998 vide SJO No. 30/26479, dated 26.10.1998 and in such cases, the complainant was to be billed in terms of C.C. No. 78/95, dated 15.9.1995 and the two connections which could not run under the rules for two separate units were got clubbed on the request of M/s. Jiwan Rice Mills and the complainant on 18.5.1999 vide SJO No. 128/26479 dated 17.5.1999 and that the complainant had never informed the opposite parties that they were not running the cotton factory during the period 1998-99.

THE reply filed by the opposite parties was not taken into consideration by the District Forum at all. In view of the factual position stated in the reply, there are no two opinions that the complainant''s case was governed by C.C. No. 78/95 dated 15.9.1995. THE District Forum has not even correctly interpreted the memo dated 19.4.1999 on the basis of which relief was given to the complainant. In that memo, it has been specifically stated that benefit of reduced period of billing shall be applicable to only such cotton ginning factories which close their working within three months from the date of start of running during such seasonal period and this fact shall be certified by AE/AEE(Op.) of the Sub-Division falling in Muktsar as well as Bathinda Districts. It was specifically stated by the opposite parties in their reply that the complainant had never informed the opposite parties that they were not running the cotton factory during the period 1998-99. This aspect of the matter was also not taken into consideration by the District Forum. In these circumstances, we do not find the opposite parties as deficient in service or committing an unfair trade practice in any manner. It is pertinent to note that the complainant had already deposited the amount demanded by the opposite parties in their bill issued to the complainant. In view of our discussion above, this appeal is allowed, the order dated 28.6.2002 passed by the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. Appeal allowed.