Suraj Bansi Printers vs PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

PETITIONER /Complainant has filed this revision under section 21(b) of the Consumer Act,1986 (for short, ''Act''), against order dated 12.07.2006 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (for short, ''State Commission'')in (Appeal No.403 of 2000)

CASE of petitioner is that four electric connection bearing nos.MS -41, MS -110, MS -154 and MS -173 are installed in his factory premises in the names of Suraj Bansi Printers, Vijay Finishing Mills, Narain Singh and Ashwani Kumar respectively. The above connections were taken by above mentioned individuals/concerns, on different dates as per their requirements. Respondents/Opposite parties insisted upon the petitioner to apply for clubbing of four MS Connections. Petitioner accordingly applied and gave consent for clubbing of the four connections. It is alleged that respondents actually did not club the four electric connections, but started charging LS tariff with 20% additional surcharge. Respondents have not carried out transition by converting MS to LS connections inspite of the fact that consent was given by the petitioner to the respondent. It is further stated that respondents are not entitled to charge tariff for LS connection without providing any service of LS connection and it can only be done so after changing MS connection to LS connection, which includes installation of transformer, removing of four MS meters, installation of one high potency meter of LS connection etc. The respondents have raised total demand of Rs.2,10,253/ - for the aforesaid connections. However, respondents are not entitled to charge any higher tariff. Since, respondents have started charging LS tariff, the petitioner filed complaint seeking the following reliefs; "That the opposite party be directed to forthwith remove and discontinue deficiency in service and unfair trade practices on their part by way of calling back all the aforesaid four notices dated 30.6.1999 raising a total demand Rs.2,10,253/ - or alternative all the aforesaid four notices be quashed, the opposite parties be also directed to pay Rs.20,000/ - towards compensation on account of undue harassment, mental agony, inconvenience and disruption is smooth conduct business of the complainant. The cost of proceedings be also awarded to the complainant".

RESPONDENT S in their written reply have stated, that four electric connections were installed in the factory of the petitioner. Respondents have issued notices asking the petitioner to get all the four electric connections clubbed. The petitioner gave option and consent for clubbing of all the four connections in the month of 9/99, but has not submitted fresh A and A form, contract demand, test report etc. As such, connections could not be clubbed for want of the estimate. Further, petitioner is not cooperating with the respondents and for this reason, respondents started charging LS tariff. It is further stated that respondents have written two letters Nos.1822 dated 30.7.1997 and 2353 dated 9.11.1998, asking the petitioner to submit fresh A and A Form, test report for the total load and mentioning of contract demand. But petitioner has not submitted the same so far. However, as per Circular No.78/95, the petitioner has paid the bill without any protest to the respondents. Thus, the demand raised is legal and complaint be dismissed with costs. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (for short, ''District Forum'') vide order dated 21.1.2000, allowed the complaint with cost.

BEING aggrieved, respondents filed an appeal before the State Commission, which allowed the same and consequently dismissed the complaint.

NOW petitioner has come before this Commission.

WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record as well as written arguments filed by the petitioner.

IT has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, that petitioner has been burdened with 20% surcharge for the period from 9/96 to 9/99 without there being any fault on its part, in terms of Circulars 78/95 and 4/97 issued by the respondents for clubbing of connections and consent for which was given prior to 31.1.97. Thus, the act of respondents in levying surcharge and difference in tariff after 9/99 for the period from 9/96 to 9/99, without issuance of any notice is against the principles of natural justice. Further, no practical steps have been taken by the respondents to club the electric connection. Therefore, they are not entitled to charge higher tariff.

IT is further submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that respondents have issued any show cause to the petitioner for submitting A and A Form. Further, transition has not been done even after 9/99 though second consent/ undertaking has been submitted by the petitioner. Transition/conversion of the connection from MS to LS, can only be charged after conversion from the date of undertaking.

ON the other hand, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents, that petitioner did not submit the relevant documents for clubbing the connections. Therefore, petitioner itself is negligent. Hence, there is no infirmity or ambiguity in the impugned order.

THE District Forum in its order held; "Law does not permit to charge higher tariff, unless connection is of high potency. Opposite party cannot charge LS tariff with surcharge when the supply is of medium in nature. Under these circumstances, 20% additional surcharge and issuing of four notices claiming an amount of difference of MS and LS rate, total of which is Rs.2,10,253/ - is not legally tenable and maintainable, unless C.C. No. 4/97 is complied with. Opposite party can charge only LS tariff in a manner provided by C.C.No.4/97 which provides that;

"In order to encourage the consumers to opt for clubbing of their loads and also to facilitate a smooth transition, it has been decided that all consumers may be asked to give undertaking for clubbing/ conversion of two or more connections in the same premises, wherever existing by 31.1.97 further action in various situations may be taken as under: -

a) Cases where no change of voltage level is involved.

The cost of clubbing with regard to service mains, if any, shall be borne by the Board. However, consumer shall be charged higher tariff wherever applicable, from the date of undertaking, which in any case shall have to be given before 31.1.1997.

b) Cases where change of voltage level is involved.

In cases requiring conversion of supply voltage from LT to 11 KV, Board shall carry out the conversion including erecting of new 11/0.4 KV transformer with allied equipment in the first instance and recover the conversion cost in six equal installments from the consumer".

The bare perusal of the above mentioned circular also makes it clear that the consumers should be encouraged for clubbing of their load and to facilitate a smooth transition, consumers may be asked to give undertaking for clubbing/ conversion of two or more electric connections in the premises wherever existing by 31.1.97. Here in this case, consumer /complainant might have been asked earlier to 9/99 when the consent was given by the complainant for clubbing of the connections. There is no evidence on the file that the consumer was so asked by the opposite party for the clubbing of connections earlier to 9/99. Since clubbing cannot be done without the consent as provided by Circular No.PSEB/ DT./S -2/SMI -269/12 dated 15.8.1995 sub clause 1(d)(iii). The consent was given by the complainant in the month of 9/99. Opposite party, therefore, cannot recover difference in tariff from MS to LS from 1/96 to 9/96 with 20% additional surcharge from 10/96 to 1/97. It may also be mentioned that circular No. 4/97 issued vide Memo No. 2811/3561/SMI -268 dated 8.1.1997 is not applicable to the facts of the present case and cannot be applied with retrospective effect for the period from 1/96 to 9/96. This circular becomes applicable only from the date of consent and onward. It is clearly mentioned in the circular No. 4/97 that in order to facilitate a smooth transition, the consumer may be asked to give undertaking for clubbing firstly. The consent was given in the month of September,99 and transition i.e. change from MS to LS connection has not been done as yet. It is also mentioned in sub clause (a) of this circular No.4/97 that consumer shall be charged higher tariff wherever applicable, from the date of undertaking, which in any case shall have to be given before 31.1.1997. In this case, consent was obtained by the opposite party be giving notices on 9/99. As such, difference in tariff from MS to LS cannot be recovered.

Opposite party has also claimed surcharge and difference in tariff after 9/99. If it is believed that the complainant has not given and submitted A and A Form and fulfilled other formalities as alleged by the opposite party in their written reply, recovery cannot be effected because it is clearly mentioned that consent has to be obtained and thereafter, transition has to be done. Transition has not been done as yet even after 9/99 after the submission of the consent/undertaking by the complainant. Transition/conversion of the connections from MS to LS has clause 1 and 2 of this circular. Opposite Party is at liberty to charge LS tariff after conversion from the date of undertaking as mentioned in the circular No. 4/97(i). Since transition has not been done, opposite party shall refund the amount within 30 days recovered after 9/97 after changing the connections from MB to LS opposite party shall be at liberty to recover difference between the two tariffs from 9/99 onward after transition.

Taking into consideration the consent given by the complainant for clubbing of all the four electric connections and the excuse of the opposite party that the complainant is not fulfilling its obligation to submit A and A Form etc, we direct the complainant to submit A and A Form, contact demand, to deposit necessary charges, test report etc. and to complete all other formalities for converting MS supply to LS supply within 30 days from the date of communication of order. The complainant shall get acknowledgement in writing from the opposite party that they have received all the documents, etc. in proper form. If any official of the opposite party refused to receive any document, he will bring it to the notice of Chief Engineer concerned and will also bring it to the notice of the Chairman of the opposite party mentioning the name of official/ officer, who refuses to receive the application, fee etc. and in that respect, he shall collect all necessary written proof to support his version that he has done everything and discharged his liability. After receiving all the necessary documents and fee, opposite party shall convert MS connection to LS connection within 30 days. If the opposite party fails to convert practically MS connection to LS connection, they shall not be liable either to disconnect the electric connection or charge any higher tariff or surcharge from the complainant. Accordingly, we accept the complaint with costs of Rs.1,000/ -".

The State Commission while allowing the appeal, in its impugned order observed; "Learned counsel for the appellant argued that as per circular no.4/97 supra, the complainant had not only to give consent but had to complete certain formalities like submission of A&A Form and Test Report. Minus those the clubbing could not have been done. The complainant was duly informed to complete those formalities by two memos to which reference has been made above. No replication or rebuttal was submitted by the complainant regarding non receipt of those two memos; rather it is stated in the complaint itself that the complainant had been receiving notices from the Electricity Board from time to time(though no dates have been mentioned). Be that as it may, it was submitted that there is no rebuttal/replication to the fact of having not received the aforesaid two memos.

The question that arises for consideration is that if the consent is given within time but the formalities are not completed within a reasonable time after being told regarding the same, it will be no consent in the eyes of law. Therefore, if there is no such consent, the charges would be levied as if no consent had been given as per circular no.4/97 read with circular no.78/95. When the formalities were again completed, naturally from that date no charges can be made for non -clubbing. In the present case, the charges were levied only for the period 9/96 to 9/99 when the second consent was given or when all the formalities were completed.

For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the approach of the District Forum was not correct in law when it allowed the complaint. Consequently, we allow this appeal; set aside the order of the District Forum and dismiss the complaint."

PETITIONER in its complaint has averred that he has received a letter from respondents calling upon him to get all the aforesaid electric connections clubbed. Accordingly, he applied for clubbing of the electric connections and also expressed its willingness to pay all the requisite charges.

IN this regard, petitioner has placed on record copy of letter dated 24.01.1997 addressed to the respondents'' officials (Page No.51 of the Paper -book), which read as under; JUDGEMENT_23_LAWS(NCD)1_2015.htm

AS per above letter, petitioner itself had made a request to the respondents, for clubbing of the electric connections, as early as on 24.1.1997.

IN its written statement respondents have admitted, that petitioner had given its option to club the aforesaid connections but no formalities with regard to the said connections were completed. As such connections could not be clubbed.

THERE is nothing on record to show that after receipt of the letter dated 24.1.1997 from the petitioner, respondents made the petitioner aware of the formalities, which were to be completed by the petitioner. There is no documentary evidence to this effect. Under these circumstances, the District Forum rightly appreciated the facts and evidence placed before it that there was no lapse on the part of the petitioner.

THE State Commission, while setting aside the order of the District Forum had committed material irregularity and has wrongly set aside the order passed by the District Forum. Consequently, we allow the present revision petition and set aside the impugned order and restore that of the District Forum.

THERE shall be no order as to cost.