P S HARDIA Vs. KEDARNATH SETHIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is an appeal against the order dated 28.6.2002, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar (hereinafter called the "district Forum" ).

(2.) Brief facts stated in the complaint are that Raj Bansal respondent (complainant before the District Forum) (hereinafter referred to as the "complainant") was consumer of appellant (opposite party No.1 before the District Forum), hereinafter called the "opposite party No.1", was in possession of connection No. MS-67 Medium supply for running his cotton ginning factory at Muktsar. The complainant's industry was of seasonal nature as per the Rules of the Electricity Board. It was stated in the complaint that the complainant could not run his industry/factory due to non-availability of cotton. The bill sent by the opposite parties to the complainant for the period 3/99 to 5/99 for Rs.39,459/-, according to the complainant, was illegal and without any basis and was, thus, a deficiency in service and unfair practice on the part of the opposite parties, particularly in view of CE Commercial, Patiala's letter dated 9.12.1998, indicating that in Muktsar district, MMC from cotton ginning factory was to be taken for only three months in the season year September, 1998 to May, 1999, as the factory did not function. The MMC had already been paid by the complainant up to February, 1999 and from March, 1999 to May, 1999, the opposite parties could not claim the same. It was ultimately prayed in the complaint that refund of Rs.39,459/- along with interest @ 18% per annum be made to the complainant and Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs.4,000/- as litigation expenses be paid to him.

(3.) The opposite parties filed a written statement. Preliminary objections were taken that the connected case titled Jiwan Bansal V/s. Punjab State Electricity Board, was pending in the Court of Shri Nirmal Singh, PCS, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Muktsar with regard to clubbing of two industries in the same premises. The Civil Court was likely to decide the dispute and the proposition involved in this behalf. It was then stated in the reply that since the complainant had already deposited the amount in dispute, he had no right to file the complaint. On merits, it was stated in the reply by the opposite parties that once the electric energy was switched on, it could not be said that the cotton factory did not function. The clubbed connection LS-11 as required by the two factories in the same premises was made to run on 6.11.1998 vide SJO No.30/26479, dated 26.10.1998. It was then stated that the complainant could not run the two connections, because two separate units under the rules were got clubbed on the request of M/s. Jiwan Rice Mills and the complainant on 18.5.1999 vide SJO No.128/26479, dated 17.5.1999. It was then stated in the reply that the complainant had never informed the opposite parties that they were not running the cotton factory during the period 1998-99. The remaining facts had also been denied and a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint with costs.