Mohammed Waheed Pasha, S/o. Mohammed Muneer, R/o. Khammam. - Complainant(s)
Versus
A.P. Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd., Khammam & another - Opp.Party(s)
B. Kalyan Rao, Advocate, Khammam.
20 Apr 2010
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT KHAMMAM Varadaiah Nagar, Opp CSI Church consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/41
Mohammed Waheed Pasha, S/o. Mohammed Muneer, R/o. Khammam.
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
A.P. Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd., Khammam & another Venigalla Nalini Kishore, S/o. Venkata Subba Rao, R/o. Khammam.
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM AT KHAMMAM Dated this, the 20th day of April, 2010 CORAM: 1. Sri Vijay Kumar, B.Com., LL.B., President 2. Smt. V. Vijaya Rekha, B.Sc. B.L., Member 3. Sri.R.Kiran Kumar, B.Sc., LL.B., Member C.C.No.41 of 2009 Between: Mohammad Waahed Pasha, s/o.Mohammad, Muneer, age: 40 years, occu: Reliance Mobile Business, D.No.8-3-200, near Ambedkar statue, Z.P.Centre, Khammam. Complainant and 1. A.P.Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd., Yellandu Cross Road, Khammam, rep. by its Assistant Engineer. 2. Venigalla Nalini Kishore, s/o.Venkata Subba Rao, age: 45 years, occu:Business, R/o.11-4-61/1, Nehru Nagar, Khammam. opposite parties This C.C. is coming on before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri.B.Kalyan Rao, Advocate for complainant and of Sri.G.Hareender Reddy, Advocate for opposite party No.1; notice on opposite party No.2 not served; steps against opposite party No.2 not taken; complaint against opposite party No.2 is dismissed; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments this forum passed the following: ORDER (Per Sri.R.Kiran Kumar, Member) 1. This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant is dealing in cell phone business under the name and style of Limra Communications at premises bearing No.8-3-200 at Z.P. center, Khammam for past more than one year. He took the said premises on lease from opposite party No.2, shop premises of complainant is fixed with electricity service connection No.17162 issued by opposite party No.1, he has been utilizing electricity power and regularly paying electricity charges, he paid Rs.804/- to opposite party No.1 through receipt No.256224, dt.18-2-2009 towards power consumption charges for the month of January, 2009. In the third week of February, 2009 officials of opposite party No.1 suddenly removed the current meter affixed in the shop of complainant stating that new type of meter would be fixed later, complainant was under impression that another would be fixed within one or two days, officials of opposite party No.1 did not turn up, did not respond on his representation, complainant realized through other sources that the power supply was disconnected and meter was removed by officials of opposite party No.1 in connivance with opposite party No.2. On 2-4-2009 complainant made a representation to opposite party No.1 to restore power supply to his shop, opposite party No.1 remained inept and complainant is subjected to lot of agony, inconvenience to his customers, losing business and he run the business on batteries. The service connection No.17162 stands in the name of one Siddique predecessor of opposite party No.2, however complainant is directly utilizing the services of opposite party No.1 on payment of power charges, officials of opposite party No.1 without any justification removed service connection. Thus opposite party No.1 committed deficiency in service towards complainant, complainant experienced reluctance on the part of opposite parties and there is no other recourse, he approached the forum for redressal. 2. On receipt of the notice, opposite party No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed counter. Notice to opposite party No.2 returned as unserved. The steps against opposite party No.2 has not been taken, complaint against opposite party No.2 is dismissed. 3. In the counter, opposite party No.1 submitted that the complainant is not the original consumer to opposite party No.1, the service was not released in the name of complainant, the original consumer approached the office for cancellation of electricity service No.17162, which is being utilized by the tenant, i.e. the complainant herein, as per the representation, the service was disconnected to complete the cancellation procedure, the complainant is not consumer to the opposite party No.1 and as such this opposite party No.1 is not responsible for the allegations made by the complainant, there is a civil dispute between the original owner and the complainant, as such the present complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 4. Along with the complaint, complainant filed an I.A.No.84/2009 with a request to direct the opposite party No.1, to restore the service connection No.17162 to his shop. The same was allowed on 11-5-2009 and directing the opposite party No.1 to restore the service connection No.17162. On behalf of the complainant, the following documents were filed and marked as Exs.A.1 to A.5. Ex.A.1 - Xerox copy of electricity bill along with receipt for Rs.804/-, for the month of January, 2009. Ex.A.2 - Xerox copy of representation made by complainant to opposite party No.1, dt.2-4-2009. Ex.A.3 - Xerox copy of bills along with receipts for the months of December, 2007 and June, 2008 Ex.A.4 - Xerox copy of bills along with receipts for the months of January, April and December, 2008 Ex.A.5 - Xerox copy of bills along with receipts for the months of March, August and October, 2008 In support of the complaint, the complainant filed the case laws, CPR-VI 1995(2) 55. On behalf of the opposite party No.1, no document has been filed. Upon perusing the material papers on record, now the point that arose for consideration is, 1. Whether the complainant is a consumer as defined? Point No.1: It is the case of the complainant that he is dealing in cell phone business under the name and style of M/s.Limra communications at premises bearing No.8-3-200, at Z.P.Centre, Khammam, he took the said premises on lease from opposite party No.2. The shop of complainant is fixed with electricity service connection No.17162 issued by opposite party No.1. In the third week of February, 2009 officials of opposite party No.1 disconnected the service connection, due to which complainant subjected to lot of agony, inconvenience to his customers and loss in business, accordingly he approached the Forum for redressal. The opposite party No.1 raised objection that the complainant is not the original consumer, the service was not released in the name of the complainant, as such the opposite party No.1 is not responsible for the allegations made by the complainant, the original consumer approached the office of opposite party No.1 for cancellation of electricity service connection No.17162, which is utilized by the complainant. As such whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act. As per section 2(1)(d)(ii), consumer means, any person who hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, which such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose; From the averments of the complaint, complainant is dealing with cell phone business and he utilizing the electricity service for commercial purpose. Therefore, the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act. In support of their contention, the complainant relied upon the case law CPR V-VI 1995(2) 55 in that the tenant utilizing the electricity for his residence and the same was deferred from the present case. The opposite party No.1 in para No.4 of their counter contended that in fact there is a civil dispute between the original owner and the complainant, as such the present complaint is not maintainable. The complainant in para No.6 in his averments he admitted that service connection 17162 stands in the name of one Siddique, predecessor of opposite party No.2 and as per opposite party No.1, the original owner siddique approached the office of opposite party No.1 for cancellation of electricity connection. It has been admitted by the complainant that the electricity service connection No.17162 stands in the name of Siddique. The owner of the complainant i.e. opposite party No.2 failed to change the service in his name from the name of his predecessor. These facts show that the complainant was not a consumer of opposite party No.1. Mere use of electricity through a connection in the name of third party cannot confirm the status of consumer on the complainant. From the above facts and circumstances of the case, the complainant cannot be termed as consumer and therefore his complaint does not lie under the consumer protection Act, 1986 and the opposite party No.1 rightly cancelled the electricity service connection No.17162 on the approach of the original consumer. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum on this 20th day of April, 2010. PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMEBR DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM, KHAMMAM Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined for complainant: -None- Witnesses examined for opposite parties: -None- Exhibits marked for complainant: Ex.A.1 - Xerox copy of electricity bill along with receipt for Rs.804/-, for the month of January, 2009. Ex.A.2 - Xerox copy of representation made by complainant to opposite party No.1, dt.2-4-2009. Ex.A.3 - Xerox copy of bills along with receipts for the months of December, 2007 and June, 2008 Ex.A.4 - Xerox copy of bills along with receipts for the months of January, April and December, 2008 Ex.A.5 - Xerox copy of bills along with receipts for the months of March, August and October, 2008 Exhibits marked for opposite parties: -Nil- PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMEBR DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM, KHAMMAM
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
