PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs SANTOKH SINGH

IT is an appeal against the order dated 9.8.199 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (hereinafter called the District Forum).

BRIEF facts stated in the complaint are that the respondent-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) was running seasonal factory known as Dashmesh Cotton and Oil Mill situated at Raman for which seasonal electricity connection had been given to him by the appellant-opposite parties (hereinafter called the opposite parties) and season of the said factory started from 15th September of every year and ended on 31st May of next year. However, as per instructions of Punjab State Electricity Board Sales Manual, this working period shall be taken as minimum four and half months for the purposes of bill. The complainant closed the working of the factory before 31.5.1997 after giving due notice to the opposite parties and opposite party No. 2 disconnected the electric connection for supplying the electricity to the factory of the complainant. During seasonal period starting from 15.9.1997 upto 31.5.1998 factory had not worked. Even the opposite parties removed the transformer originally installed for supplying the electricity for working of the factory and installed a transformer of a lower capacity, which could not bear the sanctioned load of the factory. The opposite parties in derogation to the instructions of Punjab State Electricity Board knowing fully well that complainant''s factory had not worked, issued illegally bill for Rs. 42,356/- as minimum charges and asked the complainant to deposit the same before 23.2.1998. The complainant by mistake made the payment of this illegal bill on 20.2.1998. It was further alleged in the complaint that the complainant had written to the opposite parties for refund of Rs. 42,356/- but instead of refunding the said amount the opposite parties had issued another bill for Rs. 23,475/-. Prayer was made in the complaint for issuance of directions to the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs. 42,356/- along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum and for setting aside the illegal demand of Rs. 23,475/- and also to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant. On notice, opposite parties filed reply wherein the claim was contested on the ground that as the complainant had never given any notice under rules of Punjab State Electricity Board, so he was charged minimum charges for the seasonal industry on the basis of rules and regulations of Electricity Board and as the complainant had already paid the bill without protest, thus, he could not challenge the same now.

After discussing the whole matter, the District Forum allowed the complaint. The opposite parties were directed to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs. 42,356/- paid by him against bill No. 95 and also for cancellation of bill No. 7068 for Rs. 23,475/- issued to the complainant.

HENCE this appeal. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case as well as the order of the District Forum minutely.

DISTRICT Forum has held that the minimum charges, referred to above, could only be levied as per Instructions (Ex. R-2) if the consumer issues 10 days notice before starting the industry and if he fails to do so then registered notice of 15 days has to be served by SDO on the consumer requesting him to intimate the date of starting of the industry and also to intimate the consumer about his liability of MMC for minimum period of four and half months. As according to the DISTRICT Forum, the complainant had closed the factory before 31.5.1997 after due notice and on this notice, the opposite parties disconnected the connection of the complainant and no notice for starting the factory was given by the complainant to the opposite parties and no notice was served by the SDO, PSEB (opposite parties) on the complainant regarding intimation of date of starting of the industry of the complainant, thus, the complainant was not liable to pay the bills issued to him by the opposite parties. District Forum was not aware of Condition No. 27 of the Conditions of Supply for sale of Electric Energy to consumers. Condition No. 27 of the Conditions of Supply for Sale of Electric Energy to Consumers reads as under: "27. Liability for payment of minimum charges- 27.1. Minimum charges are required to be paid by the consumers to cover fixed charges incurred by the board for affording supply such as depreciation, general reserve, interest and salaries and wages and other fixed expenses, etc. and the readiness of the Board to supply energy. 27.2. Minimum charges shall be payable by the consumer (as specified in the tariffs for different categories of consumers). This obligation shall be absolute. The minimum charges will be payable by consumer even if no electricity is actually consumed or the bill on actual consumption is less than the minimum charges. The minimum charges will be payable even if electricity is not consumed because supply has been disconnected by the Board because of non-payment of electricity charges, pilferage, malpractices or for any other violation of the provisions of these conditions/the agreement. However, after permanent disconnection, the liability of payment of the minimum charges will cease."

Reading of the above said condition shows that minimum charges are required to be paid by the consumers to cover fixed charges incurred by the Board for affording supply such as depreciation, general reserve, interest and salaries and wages and other fixed expenses, etc. and the readiness of the Board to supply energy. It is mandate of the Conditions of Supply for sale of electric energy to consumers, referred to above, that minimum charges shall be payable by the consumer (as specified in the tariffs for different categories of consumers). The minimum charges will be payable by consumer even if no electricity is actually consumed or the bill on actual consumption is less than the minimum charges. It is further made clear that the minimum charges will be payable even if electricity is not consumed because supply has been disconnected by the Board because of non-payment of electricity charges, pilferage, malpractices or for any other violation of the provisions of these conditions/the agreement. 8. It is only after permanent disconnection that the liability of payment of the minimum charges will cease. It is not the case of the complainant that his connection was permanently diconnected; neither there is any evidence on the file to show that the complainant had made any request for permanent disconnection of his industry. It was under the above provisions of Conditions of Supply for Sale of Electric Engery to Consumers that the bills were issued to the complainant. It has been specifically stated by the opposite parties in their written statement that the demand in question made by the opposite parties was in accordance with the rules and the complainant had paid the bills without any protest.

IT seems that it is in view of the above said Conditions of Supply for Sale of Electric Energy to Consumers that the complainant had paid the bills without protest. The filing of the complaint is only an after-thought for confusing the matter while pointing out to the condition mentioned in Ex. R-2, which in fact was not applicable to the facts of the case in hand. In these circumstances, we set aside the order dated 9.8.1999 of the District Forum and allow the appeal with costs, which are quantified as Rs. 1,000/-. Appeal allowed.