SHUBHKARAN RICE And GENERAL MILLS vs PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

IT is an appeal against the order dated 4.12.2001 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nawanshahr (hereinafter called the "District Forum").

UNDISPUTED facts as emerge from the record are that the appellant-complainant (hereinafter called the "complainant") had obtained two electricity connections for the purpose of rice shelling business, i.e., one electricity connection bearing No. MS-03 in the name of M/s. Shubhkaran Rice and General Mills, Rahon while the other connection bearing No. LS-01 in the name of M/s. Jogindra Rice and General Mills, Rahon, in the same premises. As per rules and instructions of the Punjab State Electricity Board, respondent/opposite party No. 1 (hereinafter called the "opposite party No. 1") contained in Circular Letter Nos. 45/94 dated 17.8.1994 and 78/95 dated 15.9.1995, two electricity connections cannot be allowed to run in the same premises and the load in respect of such connections was required to be clubbed. In terms of that policy of opposite party No. 1, the complainant were asked to club the electricity load of those connections vide letter of the Department dated 24.10.1997, but they did not agree to do the same. They, however, agreed to pay the necessary surcharge for the same vide letter dated 2.11.1998 issued on the pad of M/s. Jogindra Rice and General Mills, Rahon. Thereupon, vide letter dated 1.12.1998 issued by the opposite parties, the complainant was asked to pay a sum of Rs. 1,37,929/- by way of LT surcharge regarding the aforesaid two electricity connections installed in their business premises. The aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,37,929/-, as demanded by the opposite parties, was since paid by the complainant to the opposite parties in various instalments and there was no dispute about the same. However, the opposite parties subsequently raised further demand for the disputed amount of Rs. 93,372/- and dispute between the parties was in regard to that demand. As stated above, as per policy and instructions of the opposite parties, two electricity connections could not be allowed to run in the same premises and clubbing in such cases was necessary. The opposite parties had issued Circular Letter No. 4/97 dated 8.1.1997 asking the consumers to exercise their options regarding clubbing of electricity load of more than one connections installed in the same premises by 31.1.1997 and on failure of various consumers to exercise the necessary options and in the event of detection of non-clubbing, the consumers were to be charged higher tariff w.e.f. 1.1.1996. However, the complainant in any case did not opt for clubing but agreed to pay a higher tariff regarding the electricity connections vide their letter dated 2.11.1998 issued on the pad of M/s. Jogindra Rice and General Mills, Rahon. Opposite party No. 2 i.e. Sr. Executive Engineer, Operations, PSEB, Nawanshahr, also issued letter dated 24.10.1997 to the complainant asking them to seek necessary clubbing by 5.11.1997, failing which higher tariff in regard to both the electricity connections was to be charged w.e.f. 6.11.1997. Liability to the tune of Rs. 1,37,929/- as mentioned in the letter of the opposite parties dated 1.12.1998 was worked out by the opposite parties w.e.f. 6.11.1997 onwards as mentioned in the letter dated 24.10.1997 issued by the Sr. Executive Engineer, Operations, PSEB, Nawanshahr, while as per policy of opposite party No. 1 enunciated in their Circular Letter No. 4/97 dated 8.1.1997, the complainant was liable to pay higher tariff w.e.f. 1.1.1996 as mentioned in that letter. Thus, the disputed amount of Rs. 92,372/- remained to be recovered form the complainant by way of LT surcharge regarding the disputed electricity connections form 1.1.1996 onwards in terms of the policy of the opposite parties as enunciated in their Circular Letter No. 4/97 dated 8.1.1997. The LT surcharge to the tune of Rs. 1,37,929/- as mentioned in the letter of the opposite parties dated 1.12.1998 was worked out with effect from 6.11.1997 while the complainant was in fact liable to pay the higher tariff with effect from 1.1.1996 as per State-wide policy of the opposite party No. 1 contained in Circular Letter No. 4/97 dated 8.1.1997 in that regard and the Sr. Executive Engineer, PSEB, Nawanshahr could not change that policy at his own level. The date 6.11.1997 as mentioned by opposite party No. 2 in his letter dated 24.10.1997 for charging higher tariff from that date was due to inadvertence when the complainant was in fact liable to pay higher tariff as per the State-wide policy of the Department/Board w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and the same would not in any way absolve the complainant of their liability to pay necessary tariff w.e.f. 1.1.1996 in terms of Circular Letter dated 8.1.1997. Moreover, even as per the letter dated 2.11.1998 issued by the complainant on the pad of M/s. Jogindra Rice and General Mills, Rahon, the complainant had agreed to pay higher tariff w.e.f. 1.2.1996 (instead of 1.1.1996 as mentioned in the Circular Letter dated 8.1.1997). After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the record with their help, we are of the considered view that the District Forum has rightly held that the complainant was liable to pay higher tariff w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and not from 6.11.1997 as inadvertently mentioned in the letter dated 24.10.1997 of the Sr. Executive Engineer, PSEB, Nawanshahr and they were liable to pay the disputed amount by way of higher tariff calculated with effect from 1.1.1996 as per circular letter of the opposite parties dated 8.1.1997. In view of the position stated above, there is no infirmity in the order of the District Forum. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.