By Sri. M.S. Sasidharan, Member:
The complainant had managed a self employment venture by name Sreekumar Industries to earn his livelihood. He had two electricity connections in the firm vide consumer Nos.1/1725 and 17270(L). The firm had fallen down and hence it was stopped in the beginning of 2000 and the electricity supply was disconnected. The respondents issued a notice dt. 7.12.05 to pay Rs.27,456/- as arrears of electricity charges upto 10/05. The notice is illegal and the amount called for is time barred also. It is also informed that RR action should be initiated against the complainant if the amount is not paid. The respondents are not entitled to take such action and the notice is only an experimental one. Hence the complaint filed.
2. The counter is as follows: The electricity connection is under commercial tariff and it is used for commercial purpose. Hence the complainant is not a consumer. The amount called for is not time barred and the respondents are empowered to collect the dues. The amount requested is for the electricity consumed by the complainant. So he is liable to pay it. Hence dismiss the complaint.
3. The points for consideration are:
(1) Is the complainant liable to pay the amount as per Ext. P1 notice?
(2) Other reliefs and costs.
4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 and P2 and the oral testimony by PW1. The respondents have no evidence to submit.
5. Points: The complainant’s case is that he had used the electricity connection to run his self employment business to earn his livelihood. The said firm had fallen and the electricity supply was disconnected due to this at the beginning of 2000. The respondents issued Ext. P1 notice to pay Rs.27,456/- as arrears of electricity charges upto 10/05. The bill is illegal and time barred. So the complainant is not liable to pay the bill. The counter is that the complainant is not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act as the disputed electricity connection is used for commercial purpose. The amount called for is not time barred. Ext. P1 amount is for the electricity used by the complainant. So he is liable to pay the amount.
6. Heard the counsels on both sides.
7. The respondents have objected the complaint stating that the electricity connection is under commercial tariff and it is used for commercial purpose. On the contrary the complainant has stated that his business is a self employment venture to earn his livelihood. When cross examining the PW1 the respondents could not bring it clear that the complainant is making profit and he is not depending upon the business for his sole livelihood. Hence the complainant comes under the purview of consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.
8. The complainant has stated that the electricity supply was disconnected at the beginning of 2000 when his firm had fallen down. But during cross examination he has stated that he had not applied for disconnecting the supply and no evidence is also produced to support his claim. He has also deposed that the electricity meters in respect of the two connections are still working. Hence it is not contradicted that the a mount shown in the Ext. P1 notice is for the electricity for the period when the firm was not existing and there was no supply of electricity. As the impugned Ext. P1 amount relates to the electricity consumed by the complainant, he is liable to pay it.
9. In the result the complaint stands dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 12th day of April 2011.
