REVISION PETITION NO. 886 OF 2007

(From the order dated 2.2.2000 in Appeal No.1168/98 of the State Commission, Punjab)

1. Punjab State Electricity Board

Through its Chairman

Patiala (Punjab).

2. The Assistant Executive Engineer

Punjab State Electricity Board

Zira

District Ferozpur (Punjab). … Petitioners

Versus

The Zira Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd.

Through its Managing Director

Zira

District Ferozpur (Punjab). … Respondent

BEFORE :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.B. SHAH, PRESIDENT

MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA, MEMBER

For the Petitioner s : Mr.S.S.Gulati, Advocate

For the Respondent : Mr.Shri Singh, Advocate

Dated 20.12.2007

O R D E R

M.B.SHAH, J. PRESIDENT

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 2.2.2000 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissing the Appeal No.1168 of 1998 filed by the Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the PSEB) and confirming the order dated 1.6.1998 passed by the District Forum, Firozpur, in complaint No. 372 of 1996, the PSEB has filed this Revision Petition.

Facts

It is not disputed that the Complainant, the Zira Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., had an electric connection for its factory as well as for the associated residential colony. For this purpose, two meters were provided, one for the factory premises and other for the residential colony. The total sanctioned load provided by the petitioner Board to the complainant was 990.520 KW, out of which 231.180 KW was sanctioned for the residential colony. On 4.10.1995, the meters installed in the premises of the complainant were checked by the Senior Executive Engineer, Bhatinda who, in his report, stated that the KWH meter was slow by 9.7% and the KVA meter was slow by 3.5%. On this ground (of the meter showing less than actual consumption) a sum of Rs.1,04,750/- was recovered from the complainant, for the period six months prior to the date of checking, on average basis, without actually testing the meter.

Thereafter, on 2.11.1995, the meter was removed from the premises for getting it tested by M.M.T. and it was re-installed on 15.11.1995. No test meter was installed in place of the meter so removed by the Opposite Party for checking purpose. Thereafter, a bill of November 1995 was issued for a sum of Rs.3,67,268/-, which was payable by 27.12.1995. On the representation of the Complainant, the Opposite Parties reduced it by Rs.1,33,838/-.

Again on 17.5.1996, the Senior Executive Engineer, Flying Squad, Moga checked the premises of the complainant at 21.05 hrs. and made a report that the load being used at that time was to the extent of 189.4 KW and imposed a penalty at the rate of Rs.100/- per KW on the sanctioned load, i.e., a penalty of Rs.99,052/- was imposed.

Thereafter, the electric connection of the Complainant was disconnected on 18.5.1996. As per the checking report dated 17.5.1996, only residential lights and road lights were in use because the factory was closed since 28.4.1996 due to off-season. The Complainant had to deposit Rs.33,018/-, i.e., one-third of the penalty for restoration of the electric connection. Thereafter, the Complainant had to pay the remaining amount of Rs.66,034/- to avoid disconnection. It then approached the District Forum, with the following prayers against the Electricity Board:

(i) refund of Rs.34,276/- with interest w.e.f. 27.12.1995 till the date of payment along with damages of Rs.10,000/-;

(ii) payment of interest on the amount of Rs.1,33,858/- for the period from 27.12.1995 to 3/96;

(iii) payment of Rs.99,052/- wrongly recovered as penalty from the Complainant along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum along with damages of Rs.10,000/-; and,

(iv) payment of Rs.1,04,750/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a.

After hearing the parties, the District Forum held as under:

(1) there was unjustified recovery of Rs.1,04,750/- from the Complainant for the period six months prior to checking of the meter on the alleged ground that it was running slow. As no MMT report was produced by the PSEB demonstrating that when the meters in question were checked – the KWH meter was running slow by 9.7%; and, the KVA meter was running slow by 3.5%. Hence, the District Forum directed the PSEB not to recover the said amount of Rs.1,04,750/- and, if already recovered, to adjust the same in future bills.

(2) Secondly, it also held that an amount of Rs.3,67,268/- was wrongly recovered from the Complainant but thereafter, the erroneously recovered amount of Rs.1,41,000/- was refunded. As the amount was refunded by the PSEB no interest was required to be paid.

(3) Thirdly, it was admitted that the total load sanctioned to the Complainant was 990.520 KW out of which 231.180 KW was sanctioned for residential colony and a sub-meter was also installed by the PSEB. When the Senior Executive Engineer, Flying Squad, Moga, checked the premises of the Complainant on 17.5.1996 during the peak load hours at evening time, the consumption was to the extent of 189.470 KW. Therefore, it was not in excess of the load sanctioned for the residential colony. Hence, the PSEB cannot levy fine and recover Rs.99,052/- as penalty from the Complainant. If the said amount is recovered, it be adjusted in the future bills.

The appeal filed by the PSEB against the order of the District Forum was dismissed by the State Commission. The State Commission upheld the finding of the District Forum that no evidence, including the MMT report, was placed on record.

Hence, the PSEB is in revision before us.

Findings

Learned Counsel Mr.Gulati contended that the order passed by the District Forum holding that the Complainant was entitled to use electricity upto the sanctioned load for the residential colony was not justified in view of the circular restricting the use of the electricity consumption during the relevant period. He referred to the following circular:

“Subject: Observance of evening pea load hour restrictions by LS and MS category of industrial consumers.

In continuation to LD Circular No.13/90, 6/91 and this office Endst. No.1740/50 dated 24.6.1991, it is reiterated that Large Supply and Medium Supply Industrial Consumers except Continuous Process/Essential Industries approved by this Directorate are not allowed to run during Evening Peak Load Hours. However, it is clarified that during Peak Load Hours, all such consumers shall be allowed to run any type of load upto 5% of their Sanctioned Connected Load subject to a maxium of 50 KW for lighting/fans, water supply, repair/maintenance jobs or any other activity”.

In our view, the aforesaid circular nowhere provides that it will be applicable to the residential colony of the complainant. The circular is, prima facie, applicable to the use of electricity by industrial consumer for industrial purposes. In a residential colony, (even it associated with an industrial unit/factory), it would be difficult for any authority to curtail the consumption (as referred to in the circular mentioned above) except by non-supply of electricity.

Further, undisputedly, in the present case, the total sanctioned load provided by the PSEB to the Complainant was 990.520 KW out of which 231.180 KW was sanctioned for residential colony for which a separate sub-meter was installed. Therefore, the Complainant was entitled to use electricity up to 231.180 KW for the residential colony.

Secondly, the learned Counsel for the Respondent pointed out how the Complainant was harassed and the discussion on the issue by the District Forum. In our view, it is not necessary to discuss that question because the excess recovery is refunded.

Lastly, at the time of hearing of this Revision Petition, learned Counsel Mr.Gulati appearing on behalf of the PSEB vehemently submitted that the MMT report was produced before the District Forum, but the same was not considered. He produced a copy of the said report before this Commission along with an affidavit. Learned Counsel for the Respondent Mr.Singh submitted that no such report was produced before the District Forum. Otherwise, the District Forum and the State Commission would not have observed that the MMT report was not produced.

Considering the aforesaid dispute, in our view, it will be just and proper to remit the matter to the District Forum to decide the limited question as to whether the MMT report indicating that both the meters were running slow as contended by the PSEB, was produced before the District Forum. If the same was produced, the District Forum would decide the matter on merits and pass appropriate orders.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum are modified. The matter is remitted to the District Forum on the limited question with regard to verification of MMT report indicating the slow running of the two meters, i.e., KWH meter slow by 9.7% and KVA meter by 3.5%. If the MMT report was produced on record, the District Forum shall pass order accordingly, after hearing both the parties. The parties shall remain present before the District Forum for appropriate directions on 15.1.2008. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order directly and urgently to the District Forum.

In the result, the Revision Petition is accordingly partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/-

……………………………………….J.

( M.B. SHAH)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

…………………………………………

(ANUPAM DASGUPTA)

MEMBER