Punjab State Power Corporation Board vs Ekta Farmers Welfare Deep Tubewell Society

THIS Revision Petition is moved by the Punjab State Power Corporation against Ekta Farmers Welfare Deep Tubewell Society, Hoshiarpur, represented through Urmila Kumari. The case of the Complainant Society before the District Forum, Hoshiarpur was that the power connection was given to it in December 1996, under the Central Assistance Scheme for deep tube wells. The Society was billed for consumption till February 1997. Thereafter, no bills were raised on it, except for the period February to December 1999, under the State Scheme announced for free power supply to agricultural connections. In July 2002, the Complainant sought refund of the consumption charge paid for February-December 1999 period. In a belated response, the Revision Petitioner/OP sent a demand for Rs.2,60,632/- on 3.2.2003.

THE District Forum came to the conclusion that the power connection given to the complainant was as an agricultural connection and used for agricultural purpose. THE complainant was a society and not an individual, though represented by one. As a society of small and marginal farmers (SMF), it was entitled to the same benefits as any other SMF. THE case of the Complainant/Society was covered under clause 17 E (1) of the relevant Notification of 8.3.1997. Under this clause, with a sanctioned load above 26 BHP, it was entitled for metered supply on AP tariff for rural feeders basis. Accordingly, the demand of Rs.2,60,632/- raised by the present RP was quashed on two grounds; one, that it was raised on Industrial-Metered Supply basis and two, that it was raised beyond the limitation of three years. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh dismissed the appeal against the above order. Resultantly, the Punjab State Electricity Board has moved this revision petition before the National Commission.

The Revision Petitioner has challenged the right of the Complainant to invoke jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, raising the question of free supply of power vis-vis Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. This objection has no relevance to the impugned order, as the State Commission has not ordered supply of free power to the Complainant. On the contrary, and noting that the sanctioned load to the Complainant society is above 26 BHP, the State Commission has held : " Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant society being formed by marginal farmers for installing deep bore tubewell under Central Assistance Scheme for agricultural purpose was covered under metered supply AP Tariff for rural feeders."

THE RP has challenged the above order on another ground that ''the State Commission has failed to appreciate that the Respondent is a co-operative society, and was therefore, not entitled to maintain the complaint.'' THE argument of the RP/Appellant to exclude the Complainant society on the ground that it was not registered under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, was rightly rejected by the State Commission, as no such restriction is built into the relevant clause of the circular of 8.3.1997. A copy of this circular of 8.3.1997 is on record as Annexure P-2. Our attention has also been drawn to the decision of the National Commission in Phool Chand Agarwal Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board (1994) CPJ 45 (NC). It was argued on behalf of the RP that in terms of the ruling in this case, the District Forum and the State Commission would not have any jurisdiction to decide the tariff chargeable from the Complainant. The facts therein were that the Complainant had installed and was simultaneously using two motors of 20HP each. He invoked jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, when the Bihar Electricity Board billed him for 40 HP. Facts in the case before us are very different. Here is a case of a connection sanctioned under AP (agriculture pumping supply) category. Consumer forums have intervened when ''despite the evidence on record to show that it was an agricultural supply used for agricultural purposes'' the Punjab State Power Corporation has chosen to raise the bill under Industrial category. The Consumer forums have not decided the tariff but directed the RP to raise the bill under the applicable category, in terms of the PSEB''s own circular applicable to such cases.

FOR the reasons detailed above, we find no merit in this Revision Petition. In our view, the impugned order of the State Commission does not suffer from any infirmity to justify interference under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The Revision Petition is therefore, dismissed with no orders as to costs.