Shingar Lamps Ltd vs PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

1.THIS original complaint was filed alleging as follows :

M /s. Shingar Lamps Ltd. complainant is a limited company registered under the Companies Act. The complaint was filed through its Chief Accountant (Mr. Om Prakash). During the year 1987 -88 the company intended to establish an industry unit at Village Jalaldiwal, Tehsil Raikot, District Ludhiana for the manufacture of fluorescent electric bulbs and tubes. To run the said industrial unit an electricity connection was required for which the complainant company applied to the Punjab State Electricity Board (in short ''PSEB'') for grant of load of 670 KWs. Since the industrial unit was in a backward rural area and there was no electricity connection nearby or any transformer from which such electric load could be granted, the PSEB asked the complainant that the complainant company would have to bear the expenses of laying the line including erection of heavy duty poles, etc. The PSEB had mentioned to the complainant that PSEB did not have requisite funds to lay the line etc. and, therefore, the expenses for laying the lines and energising the connection would have to bear by the complainant company. The company agreed to bear the expenses for laying down the lines etc. for giving the electric connection. An undertaking was given on behalf of the company by the Managing Director on 11.11.1998 in the following terms : ''We agree to take the supply on 11 KV independent feeder from your Sub -Station at Raikot and necessary cost for laying the same shall be borne by us.''

A demand notice was issued to the complainant company on 29.4.1988 asking them to do some other formalities. A sum of Rs. 10,51,099/ - was deposited by the complainant company, which included certain sum as security. The needful was done and the connection was released to the complainant by the PSEB on 29.3.1990. The company enjoyed the supply of the electricity till 18th February, 2000 and vide letter dated 18.2.2000 asked the PSEB to disconnect the power supply. In this letter, apart from asking for the disconnection of the electricity supply refund of deposit of Rs. 9,74,224 and security of Rs. 76,875 was also claimed with interest. The security and some other deposits were refunded to the tune of Rs. 3,95,175 on 6.3.2002. It looks that apart from cash security certain amount had been deposited with the PSEB by way of fixed deposit. The complainant issued receipt on 6.3.2002 of having received Rs. 3,95,175 towards the refund of security deposit and fixed deposit. However, this was received under protest without prejudice to their rights. Since the amount deposited had not been refunded the complainant filed the present complaint on 2.12.2002.

The PSEB filed written statement to the complaint wherein apart from some preliminary objections, it has been averred that the complainant opted to get electric connection from an independent 11 K.V. feeder and had agreed voluntarily to make all payments and bear expenses for laying down the lines etc. to get the electric connection from 11 K.V. feeder. The factory of the complainant is approximately 5 kms from Raikot from where the electric connection from 11 K.V. independent feeder was to be given. No pressure was applied on the complainant. Since there were no funds available with the PSEB it could not have given connection from the 11 K.V. independent feeder and the complainant voluntarily agreed to bear all the expenses for laying down the lines etc. to get the requisite electricity supply from 11 K.V independent feeder. In fact after the release of the connection the complainant had enjoyed the electricity supply regularly for 24 hours a day for almost 10 years. There is no provision under the rules and regulations of the PSEB for the refund of such voluntarily deposits. Reference was also made to Regulation 17.5 of the Sales Regulations specially Regulation 17.5.3. Regulation 17.5 is reproduced hereunder : ''17.5 Refund of service connection charges -Refund of service connection charges shall be regulated as under.

17.5.1 Service connection charges deposited by prospective consumer/consumer (for availing extension in load) shall be refunded in full in those cases where Board has incurred no expenditure for catering supply/laying of line etc. and the consumer withdraws his application for availing connection/extension.

17.5.2 Where the work has been taken in hand and Board has spent any amount contingent to the said work, the amount so spent shall be forfeited and balance amount of service connection charges refunded.

17.5.3 Where the works has been completed no refund of service connection charges shall be allowed.''

THE facts, as mentioned above, in the complaint and the written statement are not in dispute. The question that arises is: that the complainant having voluntarily agreed to bear all the expenses for laying down the lines etc. to get electricity supply from a particular feeder, which was 5 kms. away and having got the electricity connection and enjoyed the fruits by using the electricity supply for almost 10 years, can he ask for the refund of the amount after the supply is disconnected on the asking of the consumer of electricity i.e., the complainant? According to us, the complainant having voluntarily agreed to spend the money for laying down the lines etc. for getting the connection, which otherwise the PSEB was not prepared to give for the reasons already mentioned above we are of the view that on getting the electricity supply disconnected and that too after 10 years no money is refundable to the complainant. There is no agreement or undertaking from the PSEB that if the electricity supply is disconnected on the asking of the complainant the money spent by the complainant would be refunded. Sale Regulation 17.5.3 supra clearly lays down that if the work has been completed by the Electricity Board in providing electricity connection no refund of service connection charges is allowed. In view of this specific regulation we are of the view that no case has been made out for claiming refund by the complainant from the PSEB. Learned Counsel for the PSEB cited a judgment of the National Commission in Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mee Shot Blasting Equipment Pvt. Ltd., II (1997) CPJ 62 (NC)=1997 (2) CON.LT 411, wherein it was held that,'' the party voluntarily undertook to make such payment for getting the electricity connection and obtained the benefit of the electric connection. After voluntarily making the payments, it is not thereafter open to such party to institute a complaint before the Consumer Forum alleging deficiency on the part of the Electricity Board''. Though in that case before the National Commission the complainant had voluntarily deposited the arrears of electricity bill of his predecesor for getting the new connection in the same premises and the connection was restored it was held that having voluntarily deposited the amount and getting benefit of restoration of the electricity connection, the complainant in that case could not turn around and claim refund of the money voluntarily deposited. According to us, this case does help to some extent the argument advanced by learned Counsel for the PSEB. As observed above, learned Counsel for the complainant could not bring to our notice any rule/regulation where such refund as asked for in the complaint can be claimed from the PSEB. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this complaint, which is hereby dismissed. However, we make no order as to costs.

Order was reserved on 21.7.2005. Be communicated to the parties.

Complaint dismissed.