PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. PRITAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed by the Electricity Board deserves to be allowed in view of wrong interpretation given to Rule 2 of Instruction No.78 as contained in Electricity Sales Manual - Fourth Edition, issued by the Punjab State Electricity Board. The complainant Pritam Singh obtained a new electricity connection for flour mill in 1978. At that time cost of the service-line was determined at Rs.9,933/- and option was given to the complainant to pay the same in lump sum or pay rental for the service-line per month. The complainant choose the second alternative for paying rental for the service-line @ Rs.140/- per month. In 1993 the Electricity Board allowed electricity connections to others from the aforesaid line, that the complainant approached first Electricity Board and subsequently the District Forum with the grouse that no other person could be allowed electricity connection from that service- line as the complainant had already paid by rentals more than the amount assessed initially by the Electricity Board. This stand was controverted by the Electricity Board in the version submitted. After getting evidence and documents from the parties, the District Forum passed order dated November 26,1996 giving direction to the Electricity Board to proportionately claim rental from other subscribers for the service-line and give credit to the complainant, who is alleged to have paid more amount towards rental which were to be adjusted from the cost of the service- line as determined, and also to refund or adjust extra amount charged in the subsequent bills. This order is under challenge in this appeal filed by the Electricity Board.

(2.) Vide order dated December 17, 1997 passed by this Commission an opportunity was allowed to the Electricity Board to file additional affidavit as to whether the entire amount as assessed has been recovered from the complainant and the rent for the service-line would cease to be charged from him. Affidavit in response thereto has been filed today. We have perused the same and we have heard Counsel for the parties. Instruction No.78, Sub-rule 2 reads as under: "should, however, a consumer who in the first instance elects to pay the monthly rentals, afterwards desires to pay in lump- sum the cost of the service-line, no refund is to be allowed to the consumer for the rentals previously paid by him and the entire cost of the service-line (Leaving 100 ft. or 30.48 metre free) as originally estimated by the Board should be recovered from the consumer. The levying of monthly service rentals would cease from the date the entire cost of service-line is paid by the consumer. "

(3.) A simple reading of the instruction referred to above leave no manner of doubt that the complainant in the facts of the present case cannot get any benefit there from. In the facts of present case, the complainant did not pay the assessed amount of the cost of the service-line i. e. Rs.9,933/-. If he had paid the aforesaid amount obviously no rental was to be charged from him and the further question which has now been debated may have come up for consideration as to whether any other consumer could be allowed connection from that service-line or not. Since that was not the position, in this case, we constrain ourselves from commenting on that point. Since the complainant choose to pay the rentals as per instruction referred to above, still he has the option to pay the amount as determined initially and thereafter deposit of the same, the Electricity Board will not charge rentals from him. It is left to the complainant, if so advised to do so. If he choose to do so, further question again as and when arises would be determined as to whether other consumers could be allowed connections from that line or not after deposit of the amount as determined as above.