PSPCL & ANR vs MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HOSHIARPUR

This revision is directed against the order of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal, Chandigarh (in short, "the State Commission") dated 29.4.2011 whereby the State Commission concurred with the finding of the District Forum, Hosiarpur and dismissed the appeal.

Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that Municipal Council, Hosiarpur (respondent herein) filed a consumer complaint pleading that the respondent/complainant is a consumer of the petitioner/opposite party. Electric connection bearing No.SL-1 for street lights of the municipal limit of city of Hosiarpur was installed by the petitioner on various electricity polls. The bills were issued as per meter reading and paid regularly. It is the case of the complainant that the petitioner/opposite party No.2, however, issued inflated bills dated 21.3.2005, 21.4.2005, 20.5.2005, 20.6.2005, 21.7.2005, 22.8.2005, 22.9.2005, 21.10.2005 and 21.11.2005 on average basis instead of actual meter reading. Ultimately, illegal demand of Rs.13,02,569/- was raised vide bill dated 22.12.2005. The complainant requested the petitioner to correct the bill as per meter reading but in vain and instead the petitioner threatened that in the event of non-payment of the bill raised on 22.12.2005, the electricity connection would be discontinued. Being aggrieved the respondent raised the consumer dispute.

The petitioner denied the allegations in the complaint on merits. It was claimed that the bills were rightly issued and the bills were not on average basis.

The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence allowed the complaint and directed as under: - " In view of the above discussion, as the opposite parties claimed excess amount from the complainant and, therefore, it is a case of deficiency in service, the complaint of the complainant is accepted and the opposite parties are required to rectify the bills dated 21.3.2005, 21.4.2005, 20.5.2005, 20.6.2005, 21.7.2005, 22.8.2005, 22.9.2005, 21.10.2005, 23.11.2005 and claim charges from the complainant only on the basis of the reading as recorded in the 42 meters installed below the various poles of street lights in city Hosiarpur and to refund the excess amount alongwith octroy charges and excise duty to the complainant within a period of two months from the date of the order. Since the complainant has been harassed from the hands of the opposite parties, therefore, the opposite parties should also make payment of a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant. A copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be arranged, paged, indexed and then consigned to the record room."

Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner Board preferred an appeal and the State Commission, Punjab vide impugned order concurred with the finding of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal. This has led to filing of the revision petition.

Learned Shri Jayant K. Sood, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable for the reason that the Foras below have failed to appreciate that the agreement for street lighting between the parties was subject to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 1910 and the Rules made thereunder and that the Foras below have failed to appreciate that the subject bills were issued on the basis of annual minimum charges clause 89.6 of Sales Regulation, 1989 framed under the Electricity Act and as such there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

Learned counsel for the respondent on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order.

I am not convinced with the submission made on behalf of the petitioner for the reason that it was not the stand of the petitioner in his written statement filed before the District Forum that the disputed bills were issued in terms of Regulation 89.6 of the Sales Regulation on "annual minimum charges". Otherwise also the issue raised by the petitioner is a mixed question of law and fact. Section 89.6 of Sales Regulation 1989 reads as under: - " If the total number of unites consumed in the whole year (Calendar year) is less than those would have been consumed if the lamps had been lit on an average of 8 hours per night over the whole year, the Board shall charge for the difference between the stipulated units and units actually consumed at tariff rates. The units consumed in a calendar year will be calculated on the basis of sanctioned load or connected load detected whichever is higher. The annual minimum charges are exclusive of line maintenance and lamp renewal charges."

In order to avail of this provision the petitioner Board was required to plead and prove that the electricity consumption for the disputed period was less than the annual minimum charges and the disputed bills were raised on that premise. The counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any evidence that the disputed bills were raised pursuant to clause 89.6. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner. Both the Foras below have returned concurrent finding of fact by reasoned order. No material irregularity or material infirmity in the impugned orders has been shown, which may justify the interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.