PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs SAINI And CO. RICE MILLS

IT is an appeal against the order dated 30.9.1999 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (hereinafter called the District Forum).

BRIEF facts stated in the complaint are that the respondent-M/s. Saini & Co. Rice Mills, Amritsar (hereinafter called the complainant) had installed Rice and Shelling Mill in the year 1983. Electric connection was given to the Mill by the appellants (hereinafter called the opposite party) from the indoor sub-station installed in a room measuring 22''X 12'' constructed by the complainant. The unit was closed in the year 1993-1994. Opposite Party was informed by the complainant regarding the closure of the unit vide various letters which were acknowledged by the Chief Engineer, Electricity Department, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, now P.S.E.B. Opposite Party had not refunded the security amount of the complainant in spite of the above said intimations. It was then stated in the complaint that though the electric connection was disconnected in the year 1994 opposite party had refused to deliver possession of the indoor sub-station and the room constructed therein by the complainant. Opposite Party started feeding electricity to the surrounding units from the sub-station installed inside the premises of the complainant in spite of protest and objections raised by the complainant. It was then alleged in the complaint that the opposite party had also constructed G.O. Switch/Pole mounting outside the indoor sub-station and even then they were not shifting the inside transformer on the mounting posed although the shifting of trasformer from indoor sub-station to pole mounting involves absolutely no expenses. It was then averred in the complaint that the indoor sub-station was badly maintained. Two mules were alleged to have been electrocuted on 22.9.1994 and goods loaded on truck bearing registration No. PB-02-621 of M/s. Hari Transport Co. (P) Limited were damaged on 29.4.1997. The complainant had also lodged a complaint on 29.4.1997 in Ghee Mandi Office of the PSEB with regard to that effect. It was then alleged in the complaint that indoor sub-station gone deep by 5'' from the road level and all the doors and ventilators were in broken condition. Thus, the complainant sought the following reliefs from the District Forum : "(I) Monthly rent due for the period w.e.f. 7.7.1983 to 6.12.1998 for 15 years and 5 months i.e. 185 months at the rate of Rs. 900/- per month = Rs. 1,66,500/- (II) Interest charged w.e.f. 7.7.1983 to 16.12.1998 on the said amount = Rs. 3,13,500/-. Total = Rs. 4,80,500/-; (III) Damages; (IV) Release of security; (V) Vacation of the premises."

Opposite Party appeared and filed the written reply. Jurisdiction of the District Forum to grant the reliefs claimed in the complaint have been disputed. The complainant was also not admitted to be a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Shri Kulwant Singh Saini was not admitted to be a lawful constituted attorney of the complainant to sign, verify, institute the complaint and to prosecute the proceedings. It was also alleged in the reply that the complaint was time-barred. Legal and complicated questions of law were involved and, thus, the District Forum had no jurisdiction to decide the complaint. Most of the material averments made in the complaint had been denied by the opposite party in their written reply. Ultimately, the opposite party submitted in the reply that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

After hearing the arguments and after having gone through the documents as well as evidence on the file the District Forum allowed the complaint with cost of Rs. 1,000/- and directed the opposite party to refund security amount with 15% interest to be calculated one month after the date of disconnection till date of payment. Opposite party was also directed to shift the substation from the building of the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of order, failing which action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was decided to be taken. Hence this appeal.

WE have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and have gone through the order of the District Forum as well as the evidence on the file with the help of the learned Advocates. The claim of the complainant before the District Forum was- (i) to return back the security amount deposited by the complainant in the year 1983 when the connection was taken by the complainant; (ii) to pay monthly rent due for the period w.e.f. 7.7.1983 to 6.12.1998 for 15 years and 5 months i.e. 185 months at the rate of Rs. 900/- per month amounting to Rs. 1,66,500/-; (iii) interest charged w.e.f. 7.7.1983 to 16.12.1998 on the said amount which comes to Rs. 3,13,500/-.

At the outset, we may observe that the order of the District Forum is illegal, erroneous and is, thus, liable to be set aside. It is not established on the record that the complainant in any case is covered under the definition of "consumer" as given under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Admittedly, the unit of the complainant was closed in the year 1993-94 and thereafter no electric connection was given by the opposite party to the complainant. It is an admitted position. In these circumstances it will not be difficult for us to hold that the complainant was not a consumer of the opposite party. The complainant is harping on to get delivery of possession of a room constructed by him. If at all, he had some grievance against the opposite party to get the possession of the room he could have filed a suit for possession against the opposite party in the year 1993-94 itself.The recovery of possession of a room certainly is not a matter which could be agitated before the Consumer Fora.

RENT/interest of the room for which the complainant was asking for its possession could also not be claimed before the District Fora. These matters could be agitated before the RENT Controller or before the Civil Court, if at all those claims were valid in accordance with the law. Such time-barred remedies perhaps could not be available to the complainant even before an ordinary Civil Court what to talk of making such claims before the Consumer Fora which was not the right Forum to agitate such type of claims. An order of the Hon''ble Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, referred to by the District Forum is not relevant to the facts of this case at all. In view of our discussions made above, we allow this appeal with costs and set aside the order dated 30.3.1999 of the District Forum. Costs are quantified as Rs. 2,000/-. Appeal allowed with costs.