RUBY MUSHROOM & CANNING PVT LTD Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS ; ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 01.08.2014, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in First Appeal, FA No. 1755/2010, "Ruby Mushroom & Canning Pvt. Ltd. vs. Punjab State Electricity Board (Now Punjab State Power Corporation Limited) and other", vide which, while dismissing appeal, the order dated 06.09.2010, passed by the District Forum, SAS Nagar, Mohali in Execution Application No. 50/2009, dismissing the said application made under section 27 of the Act, was upheld.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner, Ruby Mushroom & Canning Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director Jaswant Singh filed Execution Application No. 50/2009 under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in original consumer complaint No. 119 of 10.03.99, for getting certain payments and for punishing the respondents for allegedly, not complying with the orders dated 30.11.99, 17.02.2003, 11.11.2003 and 04.03.2009, passed by different Consumer Fora, including this Commission. In its consumer complaint No. 119 of 10.03.99 before the District Forum, the petitioner/complainant alleged that they were running a project for growing and canning of mushrooms, financed by the Punjab Finance Corporation, Chandigarh. The operation of the said project required that there should be no break-down of electricity at any stage, because such interruption in electricity supply may result in loss of production, as some optimum temperature range was required to be maintained for the well-being of the product. The complainant made application to the OP for the release of electricity connection, but since there was delay in making the connection, they had to file a civil writ petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh and thereafter, the said connection was released on 01.02.1995. It is alleged that the OPs dishonestly installed a defective electric meter due to grudge against him. The complainants requested the OPs many a time for checking of the said meter and deposited the necessary fee as well, but the testing was not carried out despite writing many letters and resultantly, the complainant had to pay highly-inflated electricity bills. The complainants then filed a civil suit against the OPs whereupon they got the meter checked on 30.09.2007, but declared it to be in order. The complainant prayed in the trial court that the OPs should be directed to place a check meter parallel to the disputed meter and get the checking done from Mobile Testing Squad (MTS) of the OPs. The check meter was also provided by the complainant at a cost of Rs. 3,650/-. The results of checking done by the MTS on 19.12.1997 showed that the meter was running fast. In the meantime, the civil suit filed by the complainant was dismissed on the preliminary issue that the complainant had not availed the remedy of approaching dispute settlement committee (DSC). The complainant stated that he had deposited a sum of Rs. 8,77,376/- till the date of filing the complaint and he was entitled to get a refund of Rs. 5,42,296/- since the meter was not running properly. After deducting a further amount of Rs. 2,24,546/- payable to the OPs, the complainant was entitled to get refund of Rs. 3,17,750/-. The complainant prayed that the extra money charged from them for the fast running of the meter should be refunded to them alongwith interest and compensation for mental harassment. The District Forum vide their order dated 30.11.99 allowed the said complaint and ordered to refund the amount as requested by the complainant alongwith compensation. The District Forum stated in their order, inter alia, that the account of the petitioner company should be overhauled by taking into account fast running of the meter as +163.36% (instead of +161,84%) from the initial installation of the meter (i.e. 1.02.95) till its replacement on 01.04.98. Being aggrieved against this order, the OP filed an appeal before the State Commission which was partly allowed vide order dated 17.02.2003 and the order of District Forum was modified to say that the OP shall not charge any monthly minimum charges from the date of temporary disconnection, i.e., 31.12.1998 till actual reconnection. Being aggrieved against this order, two cross revision petitions, namely, RP No. 1347/2003 and RP No. 1922/2003 by the complainant and OP respectively were filed. An interim order dated 11.11.2005 was passed by this Commission in these two revision petitions and these were finally decided vide order dated 04.3.2009. The petition filed by the OP was ordered to be dismissed, while in the petition filed by the complainant it was stated that under section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 the complainant had himself made a reference to the Chief Electrical Inspector who had given his Award. The order passed by the Chief Electrical Inspector was upheld in appeal before the Principal Secretary, Department of Irrigation & Power, Government of Punjab. This Commission ordered that in view of the orders passed by the Chief Electrical Inspector and Principal Secretary, Government of Punjab, the complainant could not take advantage of the provisions of section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with regard to fast running of the meter and other reliefs related to the same. This Commission, however, directed that since the complainant had to run from pillar to post to get his meter tested which finally was found to be running fast, a sum of Rs. 10 lakh should be paid as compensation to the complainant for mental agony, harassment etc. The National Commission, therefore, disposed of the petition filed by the complainant by awarding him an additional sum of Rs. 10 lakh as compensation over the amount awarded by the orders of the Chief Electrical Inspector and Principal Secretary, Government of Punjab.

(3.) It may be stated here that the Chief Electrical Inspector in his Award made on 05.08.99 under section 26(6) of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 stated as follows:-