BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.
OF 2007 AGAINST C.D.NO.143 OF 2004 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM KHAMMAM
Between
M/s KJR Granites rep. by its Proprietorix
Miss Singu Aruna D/o Punnaiah
aged about 23 years, C/o KJ Granites
Mudigonda Village of Mudigonda Mandal
Khammam Dist.
Appellant/complainant
A N D
- Asst. Engineer, Operation APNPDC Ltd.,
Mudigonda, Khammam District - Asst. Divisional Engineer, Operation, APNPDC Ltd.,
Yellandu Road, Khammam - Divisional Engineer, Operations
APNPDC Ltd., Yellandu Road, Khammam - Superintending Engineer Operations
APNPDC Ltd., Mamillagudem, Khammam
Respondents/opposite parties
Counsel for the appellant Sri V.Gourisankara Rao
Counsel for the respondents Sri O.Manohar Reddy
QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDHULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER
&
SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
WEDNESDAY THE TWELFTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
***
The complainant is the appellant. The appeal is challenge to the order of dismissal of the complaint. The complaint was dismissed for the reason that the appellant had unauthorized utilization of the connected load of 103 HP against the sanctioned load of 75 HP.
The complainant obtained service connection, S.C.No. 1255 under category III(A) on 4th July,2003. The respondents no.2 and 3 issued notice dated 4.8.2004 instructing the appellants to change the category of service connection No.1255 from category III(A) to Category III(B) and pay a sum of Rs.55,577/- towards development and other miscellaneous charges besides Rs.1,20,200/- towards metering and terminal charges.
Questioning the issuance of the notice on the ground that the appellant had already paid development charges to the tune of Rs.42,000/- and demand and customary charges as also supervisory charges and that the demand for Rs.1,20,200/- towards meter and terminal charges is arbitrary, the appellant has filed the complaint stating that the recorded consumption at any point of time never exceeded more than 55.91M.D.
The respondents contended that on 24.5.2004 the third respondent inspected the service connection in the presence of one Konde Suresh, the representative of the appellant and found that the appellant was utilizing the connected load of 103 HP, details of the connected load were noted in the inspection notes. As the appellant had unauthorizedly utilized the load of 103HP against the sanction load of 75 HP, notice was served on the appellant to regularize the load by paying the necessary charges. It was contended that the category under which a particular connection is to be placed will be decided on the basis of utilization of the loan at particular instance, but not the connected load. After receipt of the notice, the proprietor of the appellant approached the respondents and requested for time promising that the amount would be paid on or before 25.10.2004.
The proprietor of the appellant Singu Aruna has filed her affidavit. Exs.A1 to A7 were marked on behalf of the appellant.
On behalf of the respondents Exs.B1 to B9 were marked.
Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant had filed the complaint contending that the notice dated 4.8.2004 with assessment requesting the appellant factory to convert the service connection no.1255 from category III(A) to Category III(B) is illegal and not tenable in view of utilization of energy not exceeding 55.91 MD at any point of time and that the appellant had already paid the development charges to the extent of Rs.42,000/- and demand charges and customary charges besides the supervisory charges levied under the impugned notice dated 4.8.2004.
The points for consideration are:
1) Whether the appellant is consumer within the meaning of Sec.2(1)(d) of C.P.Act?
2) Whether there any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents?
3) To what relief?
POINT NO.1 The appellant is a factory and obtained service connection No.1255 under category III(A) for the purpose of utilization of energy for the purpose of its business necessity. The appellant, as its name indicates is engaged in the business of granite stones. The appellant has filed the complaint challenging the assessment of charges under different heads such as meter and terminal charges, development charges, customer charges and supervisory charges levied under notice dated 4.8.2004. The respondents had inspected the service connection of the appellant on 24.5.2004 and detected that the appellant was utilizing the a connected load of 103HP as against the sanctioned load of 75HP. The inspection notes prepared by the respondent no.3 would establish the factum of inspection by the respondent no.3 of the service connection oft h appellant. The question to be determined is whether the appellant can invoke the jurisdiction of the District forum under the provisions of the C.P.Act in view of the energy supplied by the respondent being utilized for the business necessity of the appellant factory. Sec.2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act reads as under:
(d) "consumer" means any person who—
(i) buys any goods 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 user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) 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, when 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 purposes;
Explanation.— For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment
Admittedly, the appellant has been utilizing the energy supplied by the respondent for the purpose of its business necessities. Though the energy is not considered as goods within the meaning of Sec.2(1)(d) of the C.P.Act, it is pertinent to note that the service supplied by the service provider can also be not used for any commercial purpose in order to enable the user of service to invoke the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. The user or beneficiary of the service provided by the operator and utilized for a commercial purpose has been prohibited from invoking the provisions of the C.P.Act from the 15.3.2003 i.e., from the date of amendment by Amendment Act No.62 of 2003 which excluded all the service utilized for commercial purpose from the ambit of the C.P.Act. In that view of th matter, the appellant cannot be said to be a consumer within the meaning of Sec.2(1)(d) R/w Sec.2(1)(o) of the C.P.Act.
POINTS NO.2 AND 3 The point no.1 has been decided against the appellant and the appellant was held to be not a consumer as defined by the provisions of the C.P. Act. As such there need be no discussion any further and the result is the dismissal of the appeal.
In the result the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.12.05.2010
KMK*
