TILAK RAJ Vs. PSEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of five appeals i.e., First Appeal No. 371 of 2003, P.S.E.B. v. Tilak Raj, First Appeal No. 374 of 2003, Ravi Mohan v. P.S.E.B., First Appeal No. 375 of 2003, Tilak Raj v. P.S.E.B., First Appeal No. 376 of 2003, lndu Duggal v. P.S.E.B. and First Appeal No. 377 of 2003, Kanchan Duggal v. P.S.E.B. as the same are preferred against the same impugned order dated 29.1.2003 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short the District Forum ). The facts are taken from First Appeal No. 375 of 2003 and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/appellant (in short the appellant was the proprietor of M/s T.R. Textiles and carrying on the business of woollen shawls. For this purpose, he has taken electric connection bearing No. SP 61/0070 HL in the name of Diwan Woollen Mills with sanctioned load of 8.20 KW for industry and 0.46 for lights. All the bills were paid regularly. It was pleaded that adjoining to his premises, 7 other concerns/firms were running in separate and distinct premises and they have no concern with his premises. These firms have separate electric connections and had no concern with the electric connection of the appellant. These firms have been carrying their separate manufacturing activities and have no link of any kind with each other. His connection falls under SP category but the respondent without any reason and his consent clubbed these connections with his connection, which was an illegal act on the part of the respondent. The respondent issued bill dated 17.8.2000 for a sum of Rs. 27,275. The respondent revised the tariff of the appellant from SP to MS category w.e.f. 1.7.2000 after clubbing the other connections and claimed Rs. 6,163 as arrears and Rs. 15,194 as sundry charges. The respondent also charged additional surcharge and meter rent at higher rate. It was pleaded that clubbing of the connections and charging of tariff under MS category were illegal. No notice in this regard was issued by the respondent and no opportunity of hearing was given to him. It was prayed that the respondent be directed to separate his connection from the connections of other firms and charge the tariff under SP category instead of MS category and to withdraw the bill dated 17.8.2000. Compensation of Rs. 10,000 and litigation expenses was also demanded.

(3.) THE respondent replied by taking preliminary objection that the complaint was not maintainable and the District Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint in view of the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in case "P.S.E.B. and Anr. v. Ashwani Kumar", no cause of action has arisen to the appellant against the respondent so the complaint was liable to be dismissed, it was pleaded that electric connection of the appellant, which was in the name of M/s Diwan Woollen Mills was checked by Addl. SE Enforcement, Amritsar -I on 12.5.2000 and reported vide site report No. 20/110 dated 12.5.2000 that there were five other connections bearing : Account No. Sanctioned Load Name of the consumer A/c No. SP 61/0072 7.62 KW Tilak Raj A/c No. SP 61/0073 6.62 KW M/s Duggal Woollen Mills A/c No. SP 61/0369 8.38 KW Ravi Mohan Duggal A/c No. SP 61/0370 19.98 KW M/s. DC Woollen Mills A/c No. SP 61/0071 7.620 KW Charan Dass These connections were running in the same premises and main gate of all the six connections was one. It was also pleaded that one knitting machine was installed in the premises for all the connections and the connections were intermixed. As per commercial circular Nos. 78/95 and 4/97 all the six connections were clubbed as the total load of these connection becomes 58.88 KW which falls under MS category. Notices No. 1383 dated 18.5.2000 and No. 2416 dated 16.8.2000 were served upon the appellant for clubbing of all the six connections and charging of higher tariff. The appellant had not furnished A&A form and also not come forward for clubbing of these connections. Test report was also not furnished. Then Rs. 15,194 was charged in the bill dated 17.8.2000 of Rs. 27,275 as difference of MS and SP tariff for the period from 1/96 to 6/2000. The same was deposited by the appellant voluntarily. It was pleaded that the appellant was liable to pay the same and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. Learned District Forum, Amritsar after hearing the parties and gone through the evidence, partly allowed the complaint of the appellant. The following is the operative part of the order: