AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Both Revision Petition have been filed by the Petitioners against the common impugned order dated 27.03.2019 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission" ) in Appeal No. 609 of 2018 and 910 of 2018.
Case of the Complainant/Respondent is that he was the proprietor of M/s Divine Mushroom Farm having Khata No.93/115 situated in Village Barona, Tehsil-Kharkhoda, District Sonipat. The firm was established in the rural area comprising of agriculture land under the prescribed guidance of Indian Council of Agriculture Research and Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agriculture University, Hissar. The Complainant applied for the issuance of NOC from the Directorate, Town and Country Planning Department, Chandigarh, for raising construction in the above mentioned agriculture land. The NOC was issued, vide office Memo No.ST-1937B-PA(B)-2013/52259 dated 19.09.2013. On the request of the Complainant, the District Horticulture Officer, Sonipat, vide letter Memo No.2206 dated 19.03.2013 also issued intimation to the Opposite Parties for the issuance of electricity connection under agriculture/horticulture scheme. The Complainant, vide Application No.7984 dated 25.03.2013 applied for the electricity connection in the name of the firm by depositing an amount of Rs.2,20,100/- vide receipt No.226/66609 dated 25.03.2013. However, the Opposite Parties sanctioned the electricity connection under RDS feeder. The Complainant came to know about this fact when he received the first electricity bill for the month of October, 2013. On 27.12.2013, the Complainant moved an application to the Junior Engineer UHBVNL, Sampla for conversion of his electricity connection from RDS feeder to Agriculture category and requested refund the excess amount paid under the previous bill. Despite various representations the Opposite Parties failed to convert the electricity connection of the firm into agriculture connection. The Opposite Parties continued to supply the electricity under RDS feeder upto June 2016 and thereafter converted the connection into Industrial Feeder/Supply, vide Memo No.Ch-91/CR/DRG-153 Dated 29.06.2016. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties started charging industrial tariff charges from the Complainant. Opposite Parties also charged MDI Penalty of 76,662.42/- for September, 2017 and Rs.93,082.28 for October, 2017. Aggrieved by non-conversion of electricity connection into agriculture connection, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint No.419 of 2017 before District forum with following prayer: -
"(a) To change/convert the existing electricity supply into agriculture metered Connection with the applicable Agriculture/Horticulture tariffs, as such from the present feeder; the premises of the complainant firm, AND
(b) To refund/adjust the excess amount paid by the complainant firm against the electricity Consumption Since the inception of electricity connection on 09.09. 2013 in the Premises and to pay interest on the due amount at the rate 18% per annum, AND
(c) To pay Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.Two Lac) as compensation and damages on account of mental pain, agony, humiliation and sufferings; and also on account of providing the deficient and poor services to complainant firm,
AND
(d) To pay 22,000/- on account of litigation, Cost and other expenses incurred by the complainant firm.
Any other relief/order which the Hon'ble forum deem fit and proper and for which the Complainant firm is found entitled, be also awarded/passed in the favour of complainant, in the interest of justice. "
Complainant also filed Consumer Complaint No.468 of 2017 with following prayer: -
" (a) To waive off the MDI Penalty amounting to Rs.76,662.42/- shown in the billing month of September 2017 (Annexure-C/2) and MDI Penalty amounting to Rs.93,082.28/- shown in the billing month of October 2017 (Annexure-C/5), and
(b) To charge the current electricity supply as agriculture metered connection with the applicable Agriculture/Horticulture tariffs, as such from the present feeder; in the premises of the complainant firm, and
(c) To refund/adjust the amount paid by the complainant firm against the electricity bill on 06.10.17 (Annexure-C/4) and,
(d) To pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.One Lac) as compensation and damages on account of mental pain, agony, humiliation and sufferings; and also on account of providing the deficient and poor services to complainant firm, and
(e) To pay Rs.22,000/- on account of litigation, cost and other expenses incurred by the complainant firm."
The Opposite Parties contested the Complaint by filling separate Written Statements. It was stated that the Complainant had no locus standi or any cause of action against the Opposite Parties as there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. On merit, it was stated that initially the Complainant was issued electricity connection under RDS Feeder. After sometime, the Complainant himself applied for shifting the connection from RDS Feeder to Industrial Feeder. Otherwise also since the electricity connection had been given in the name of the firm, the Complainant was liable to pay electricity charges as per Industrial Feeder. It was also stated that the MDI Penalty was imposed as per Rules & Regulations as the Complainant had used excessive load as against the sanctioned load.
The District Forum after hearing the Learned Counsel for the Parties and perusing the record, vide order dated 11.12.2017, allowed Consumer Complaint No.419 of 2017. The order of the District forum reads as follows: -
"The respondents have charged NDS/industrial tariffs since the time of inception of electricity connection on 9.9.2013 and they never tried to change the category of the complainant's connection despite receiving the clarification from the Chief General Manager, UHBVNL and charged excessive rate of tariffs from the complainant. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to charge the tariff under agriculture category in respect of the electricity connection of the complainant w.e.f. 9.9.2013 till the change of category of electricity connection under agriculture tariff and to refund the excess amount paid by the complainant without interest within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this order and after expiry of 60 days, the respondents shall pay interest on the excess amount paid by the complainant at the rate of 09% per annum till its realization."
The District Forum, vide order dated 02.02.2018, also allowed Consumer Complaint No.468 of 2017. The order dated 02.02.2018 reads as follows: -
"Thus, in the order dated 11.12.2017, the account of the complainant was considered under agriculture tariff and not under industrial or commercial tariff in any manner. The respondents have even no right to charge the MDI penalty to the tune of Rs.76,662/- and Rs.93082/- from the complainant as shown in the bill for the month of 9/17 and 10/17 because the MDI penalties are charged only under industrial or commercial category and not under agriculture tariff. Thus, to avoid the conflicting findings and taking into consideration the directions by this Forum to the respondents, it is directed to the respondents not to charge the MDI penalty as shown in the bill for the month of 9/17 and 10/17 and the respondents are directed to withdraw the same. It is also directed to the respondents to refund the amount of the above said MDI penalties, if the same are wrongly paid or partly paid by the complainants to the respondents within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the above said amount (paid wholly or paid partly) of MDI penalties shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its adjustment. With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed."
Aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 11.12.2017 and 02.02.2018, the Opposite Parties preferred First Appeal Nos.609 of 2018 and 910 of 2018 before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide impugned order dated 27.03.2019, dismissed both the Appeals.
Aggrieved by the Order of the State Commission Petitioners/Opposite Parties filed instant Revision Petitions.
Heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and carefully perused the record. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that initially the electricity connection was issued to the Respondent under the RDS feeder. Thereafter, on the request of the Respondent his connection was converted to the Industrial Feeder. However, the Respondent exceeded the sanctioned load and a penalty of Rs.76,662.42 for the months of September and October, 2017 was levied on the Respondent.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant submitted that he came to know about the RDS feeder connection when he received the first electricity bill for the month of October, 2013. He also submitted that the Complainant approached the Junior Engineer of the Opposite Parties for conversion of his electricity connection from RDS feeder to Agriculture/Horticulture category and refund the excess amount charged at the commercial rate. Complainant also made various representations to the Opposite Parties but in vain.
The entire controversy in instant Revision Petitions is whether the Respondent/Complainant was entitled for electricity connection under the RDS feeder as provided by the Opposite Parties or the Agriculture/Horticulture category. Directorate of Town & Country Planning issued NOC dated 16.11.2017, which reads as follows: -
" Your above referred application has been examined in light of the report received from DTP, Sonepat & STP, Rohtak and it has been noticed that the Mushroom Farming covers in the definition of "agriculture" as per Section 2 (1) of the Act 41 of 1962 being an horticulture activity. Therefore, it has been decided that as long as the site will be used for mushroom farming purpose, no change of land use is required and in case the building is found to be used for purpose other than agriculture, this NOC shall be considered as withdrawn automatically and action in accordance with the provisions of Act/Rules will be initiated."
On the basis of the above report, the Complainant applied for electricity connection in the name of his firm for the mushroom project. Sales Circular No.2/2011 dated 11.01.2001 issued by the Superintending Engineer of the Opposite Parties is relevant which reads as follows: -
"In view of the above it has been decided that Mushroom Cultivation which is carried out mostly in one or two rooms may be charged tariff as per the category from which connection has been taken. When Mushroom Cultivation is undertaken in agricultural land in rural areas then it would be charged at agricultural metered connection rate for which the farmer would seek a separate metered connection."
On 27.12.2013, the Complainant gave an application to the Junior Engineer of the Opposite Parties for conversion of his connection from RDS feeder to agriculture category. Executive Engineer of the Opposite Parties also gave is report dated 30.12.2013 to the effect that "the case of Divine Mushroom Farm may be dealt as agriculture tariff as per sale circular No.02/2001 with the consult of Revenue Accountant/Audit Party to avoid any charges in Sales Circular after 2001, if the farm is situated on agriculture land in rural area." The State Commission has observed that " the reasons are beyond the understanding of this Commission as to why inspite of the fact that a large number of correspondence was taken place and it was advised to the department from time to time that the case of the complainant falls in the category of "horticulture connection"; still he was charged under NDS category."
From the above, it is clear that the Complainant/Respondent was eligible for electricity connection under agriculture category. Since the Complainant was eligible for agriculture tariff, imposition of the MDI Penalty levied by the Opposite Parties was not justified. We do not find any material irregularity in the order passed by the State Commission. Also, Jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21 (b) is very limited. This Commission is not required to re-appreciate and reassess the evidences and reach to its own conclusion. The Court can intervene only when the Petitioner succeeds in showing that the Fora below have wrongly exercised its jurisdiction or there is a miscarriage of justice. It was so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 has held as under: -
"13. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora."
Same principle has been reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. and Ors. (2016 8 SCC 286 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"23. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in their or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons."
In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of both Fora below. Petitioners have failed to point any illegality or material irregularity in the order passed by the State Commission, warranting interference in exercise of Revision Jurisdiction of this Commission. Revision Petitions are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.