S.M. Kantikar ORDER
Dr. B.C. Gupta, (Presiding Member)
1. This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 23.09.2010, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 1310/2004, "Narinder Kumar Jain v. Punjab State Electricity Board", vide which, while dismissing the said appeal, the order dated 17.09.2004, passed by the District Forum Ludhiana, dismissing consumer complaint No. 1488/19.12.2003, filed by the present petitioner, was upheld.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant Narinder Kumar Jain is having a power electric connection bearing account No. HB16/0040 (SP) with a load of 19.20 kw, provided by the erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board, now known as Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL). The complainant is stated to have installed one machine consisting of grinder, cutter and dana plastic (granules) machine and also employed one person for his help. As stated in the consumer complaint, the complainant has been paying the electricity consumption charges regularly, but on 22.12.2003, he received a bill in which the opposite party (OP) raised a demand of 1,51,096/- under sundry charges. On inquiry, he was told that these charges relate to the clubbing charges, as there was another electric connection No. HB16/0042 in the name of Suresh Kumar on the same premises and hence, the billing had been done on MS Tariff and difference of SP to MS from 1997. It is the case of the complainant that there was no nexus between the two connections; Suresh Kumar had a separate entry towards main road and had separate premises fully constructed. There was no entry from inside between both the premises. The complainant stated that before sending the bill, no notice was given to them and no checking had been made. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs in raising demand of 1,51,096/- and sought directions that the said demand be quashed and OP should be directed to keep the status of tariff as S.P. instead of MS and refund the excess amount recovered alongwith interest @12% p.a. A penalty of 30,000/- and litigation cost of 5,500/- was also sought to be imposed on the OP.
3. The complaint was resisted by the OP by filing a written statement before the District Forum in which they stated that the complainant was using the small power industrial connection with 19.20 KW load for commercial purpose and hence, he did not fall under the definition of consumer. Further, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP, because the two connections HB16/0040 & HB16/0042 were checked by Senior Executive Engineer (Enforcement-III), Ludhiana on 23.03.2002. It was reported that both the electric connections were intermixed with wires through common wall between the two connections. These wires were covered and concealed with plastic bags/goods. It was recommended that clubbing of these two connections be done and single point supply be arranged. A notice bearing No. 969 - 970 dated 10.04.2002 was served on both the consumers and they were asked to get the electric connections clubbed. The checking of the premises was again made by the Senior Executive Engineer on 23.04.2003 and according to the report of the checking, the audit party mentioned the amount of clubbing as 1,51,096/- including the electricity duty. The OP stated that after clubbing of both the connections, they fell under the category of MS electric connection and hence, the demand of 1,51,096/- had been rightly raised against the complainant.
4. The District Forum after considering the averments of the parties dismissed the complaint vide their order dated 17.09.2004. The District Forum held that the electricity was being used for commercial purpose and hence, the complainant could not be stated to be consumer. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the petitioner/complainant challenged........