PER SHRI. S.S. PATIL - HON’BLE MEMBER :
1) This is the complaint regarding deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party who issued the electric bill in the name of M/s.Janpriya Finance & Investments (India) Ltd. instead of issuing the bill in the name of Complainant who is the regular user of the electricity of the Opposite Party.
In this complaint, the Complainant states that Complainant is a Company registered under the Companies Act and the Opposite Party is also a company supplying electricity to the Complainant’s office.
2) It is further stated by the Complainant that the Opposite Party supplies the electricity to the premises which are occupied by the Complainant as a tenant. The Complainant further stated that it is paying the electricity charges regularly to the Opposite Party. It was receiving the bills in the name of Ganpati Comnines Ltd. It is the tenant of Land lord viz M/s.Janpriya Finance & Investments (India) Ltd.
3) The Complainant received a letter addressed by the Opposite Party to M/s.Janpriya Finance & Investment (India) Ltd. stating that “the records being very old, the documents submitted for change of name are not available.” This letter raised suspicion and the complainant made enquires with the Opposite Party which revealed that the Landlord (M/s.Janpriya Finance & Investment (India) Ltd.) had attempted to change the name in the electricity bill issued in the name of Ganpati Comnines Ltd.
4) The Complainant further stated that the Complainant has filed a RAD suit against the said land lord for interim injunction from dispossessing the Complainant from the property possessed by it as mentioned in the title of this complaint (address of the Complainant). In this suit, the Commissioner’s report categorically states that the Complainant is in possession of the premises where the Opposite Party supplies its electricity.
5) The Complainant stated that in the month of Aug., 2008 the Opposite Party transferred the electric meter in the name of M/s.Janpriya Finance & Investment (India) Ltd. Even the Opposite Party also changed the address where the electric bill has to be sent. The new address where the bill was to be sent is at Khar where as the property was situated in South Mumbai. This change in the name and address was effected with a view to harass the Complainant and to creat a situation in which the bill could not be paid by the Complainant and thereby the Opposite Party could disconnect the electric supply for default on the part of the Complainant. Thus, this act of change of name and address of the consumer amounts to deficiency on the part of Opposite Party.
6) The Complainant further stated that it informed the above facts to the Opposite Party vide its letter dtd.11/12/2008 and requested the Opposite Party to rectify their mistake but to no avail.
7) The Complainant specifically mentioned that it has availed the services of the Opposite Party and it is making regular payment towards the consumption of the electricity and hence, it is the consumer of the Opposite Party.
8) The Complainant lastly prayed that -
a) The electric bill be issued in the name of Ganpati Comnines Ltd..
b) The bill be sent at the address of the Complainant.
c) Opposite Party be directed to provide uninterrupted service to the Complainant.
d) Opposite Party be directed to pay Rs.25,000/- towards the compensation for deficiency in service on the part of
Opposite Party and cost of Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of the complaint.
9) The Complainant has attached the copies of the following documents in support of its complaint.
a) Letter of Opposite Party addressed to M/s.Janpriya Finance & Investment (India)Ltd.,6thfloor,R.No.62,Mittal Tower,‘A’
Wing, Nariman Point Road, Mumbai – 400 021, dtd.21/11/2008.
b) Electricity bill in the name of M/s.Janpriya Finance & Investment (India) Ltd.C/o.MRS.Todi 21,Shantivan, Ramkrishna
Mission Rd., Khar (W) 52. for the period from 15/10/08 to 117/11/08 dtd.04/12/08.
c) Electricity bill in the name of Ganpati Comnines Ltd., 6th floor, R/No.62, Mittal Tower, ‘A’ Wing, Nariman Point Rd.,
Mumbai – 400 021. for period from 16/06/08 to 16/07/08 dtd.01/08/08.
d) RAD Suit No.1751 of 2007 including application for appointment of commissioner and interim relief.
e)Order dtd.09/04/2008.
f)Report of the Commissioner dtd.Nil – alongwith photographs.
g)Letter dtd.11/12/2008 of the Complainant.
10) The Complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the Opposite Party. Opposite Party filed its written statement wherein it stated that the Complainant is not a consumer as it is a company and the services availed of are for commercial purpose for advancing its business profit.
11) The Opposite Party further stated that the Complainant is not direct consumer of the Opposite Party. The Complainant is paying the bill in the name of Ganpati Comnines Ltd.
12) The Opposite Party further stated that M/s.Janpriya Finance & Investment (India) Ltd. had applied for change of the name of the consumer of electricity of Opposite Party vide its application No.888 dtd.24/07/08 alongwith rent receipt dtd.07/07/2008 and NOC from Mittal Towers Premices Co-operative Society Ltd. Accordingly the Opposite Party changed the name of consumer in the month of August, 2008.
13) The Opposite Party further stated that M/s.Janpriya Finance & Investment (India) Ltd. had applied for change in the address where the electric bill is to be delivered vide application dtd.16/09/08. As per this application the address for billing is also changed by the Opposite Party.
14) The Opposite Party also stated that a site inspection was carried out on 23/01/2009. However, nobody from the Complainant’s side was available. The Opposite Party has attached the site inspection report dtd.23/01/2009.
15) The Opposite Party has submitted that the Complainant paid the electricity bill by preparing duplicate bills from the Opposite Party office. The Opposite Party submitted that the change in the name of the consumer of electricity at the premises 62 ‘A’ Wing, Mittal Towers, Nariman Point, Mumbai is affected as per the request of the owner of the premises and the owner had submitted necessary documents in support of his application for this change. The Opposite Party lastly averred that there is no deficiency in service on its part. The Opposite Party also clarified that the change in the name of its consumer was effected as per condition no.13 of the Terms and Conditions of “supply and schedule of charges”. The Opposite Party also submitted that it has annexed and marked at Exhibit-‘V’ is the extract of condition No.13.
16) The Opposite Party has attached the copies of the following documents with its written statement -
a) Application of one Sushilkumar Krishnaprasad Todi, under “Right of Information Act”, dtd.14/08/2008.
b) Letter of Opposite Party to Mr.Sushilkumar K. Todi, dtd.11/09/08.
c) Letter from M/s.Janpriya Finance & Investment (India) Ltd. addressed to Opposite Party, dtd.18/11/2008.
d) Application No.888 of M/s.Janpriya Finance & Investment (India) Ltd. dtd.24/07/08 addressed to Opposite Party for
transfer of electric bill to their name alongwith the prescribed form, dtd.22/07/2008.
e) Electric bill issued by the Opposite Party in the name of “Ganpati Comnines Ltd.” for the period from 15/05/08 to
16/06/2008.
f) Maintainance bill issued by Mittal Towers Premises Co-operative Society Ltd., dtd.07/07/2008 for period July, 2008 to
Sept.,2008.
h)Letter from Mittal Tower Premises Co-operative Society Ltd., dtd.18/07/08.
i)Letter of Opposite Party to Complainant, dtd.14/01/2009.
j)Letter of Opposite Party to Complainant, dtd.03/02/2009.
k)Inspection note of Opposite Party, dtd.Nil inspection dtd.23/01/2009.
l)Extract of Terms and Conditions supply and schedule of charges containing condition 13.
17) The Complainant also submitted rejoinder and written argument wherein it reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint. Similarly the Opposite Party also submitted its affidavit and written argument wherein it reiterated the facts mentioned in the written statement stated above.
18) We heard the Ld.Advocate for the Complainant and the Ld.Legal Officer of the Opposite Party. We also perused the above said all documents and we come to the conclusion as follows –
19) The Complainant is the company constituted as per the provision of Company Act, 1956 and Opposite Party is also a company supplying electricity to its consumer at 62 A, Mittal Towers, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 21.
20) As per the record, it appears that the Opposite Party was issuing electric bill at the above said address in the name of Ganpati Comnines Ltd. upto 01/01/2008 – [Exhibit-‘C(3)] to the complaint (bill for the period from 16/06/08 to 16/07/08). This bill was issued by the Opposite Party on 01/08/2008 for meter MO70148. For the same meter, electric bill for the period from 14/08/08 to 16/09/08 was issued in the name of M/s.Janpriya Finance & Investment (India) Ltd. Thus, the change in the name was effected by the Opposite Party from 01/08/2008 onward.
21) Meanwhile M/s.Janpriya Finance & Investment (India) Ltd., had applied to the Opposite Party for change in the name in the electric bill on 22/07/2008 in a prescribed form. In this application, the applicant had not filled the information against the following columns –
i) Name of the contact person at site and his contact no.
ii) Name of consumer to whom the service connection was given.
iii) Indicative list of documents (copy) – Documents copies attached……
iv) - Points 5(B) of the form – The following are my requirements (B) Commercial – Lights, fans, plugs, etc.
The purpose of the usage of the electric supply was mentioned as the ‘commercial’ on front page of this application.
22) The Opposite Party was well versed till 01/08/2008, that the bill was in the name of Ganpati Comnines Ltd. and still it accepted the application above mentioned with the blank information against the above columns.
23) The bill for the month of Sept.,2008 was issued in the name of M/s.Janpriya Finance & Investment (India) Ltd. but the Opposite Party had inspected the premises on 23/01/2009 i.e. after the change of the name in the bill. (Exhibit IV to the written statement of the Opposite Party itself).
24) The Opposite Party has not submitted all the terms and conditions in respect of the change of name in the electric bill. It only relied and produced the contents of Term 13 of the Schedule of charges. Even if this term is perused, para 13.1 reads as – “A connection may be transferred in the name of another person upon death of the consumer or in case of transfer of ownership or occupancy of the premises upon application for change of name by the new owner or occupier”. Thus, it is clear from this term also that there should be a transfer of ownership or occupancy of the premises. In this case upto 01/08/08 the meter holder was Ganpati Comnines Ltd. and on 22/07/08 M/s.Janpriya Finance & Investment (India) Ltd. applied for the change. Here it is the obligation of the Opposite Party to confirm the transfer of ownership/occupancy from Ganpati Comnines to M/s.Janpriya Finance & Investment (India) Ltd. by physically verifying the occupancy by visiting the premises or issuing the notice to its original consumer in natural course. However, the Opposite Party has visited the premises on 23/01/2009 i.e. after 4 months after effecting the change in the name, putting as remark “concern person not present”. If the concerned person was not present then, how the Opposite Party could change the name of its meter holder without giving a notice to the original consumer ? In fact, there was no any transfer of ownership or change of occupancy of these premises on or about 22/07/08 or thereafter.
25) Thus, from the above mentioned circumstances, it is clear that the Opposite Party had not taken proper precautions while effecting the change in the name in the electric bill in respect of meter MO70148.
26) It is the fact that the electric meter was in the name of Ganpati Comnines Ltd. however, from the complaint it appears that the complainant was the user or the beneficiary of the services provided by the Opposite Party. The other objection of the Opposite Party is that the services of the Opposite Party were availed for the purpose of commercial purpose. The Opposite Party in his written statement has averred - “the Complainant in his opening para categorically stated that, the Complainant is a company registered under Companies Act and hence, it is quite clear that they avail of services for commercial purpose from Opposite Party for furthering and advancing its business profit and hence, being a commercial consumer they are not covered under the definition of consumer.” Only if the company is registered under Companies Act, then its services availed of, from different agencies do not necessarily come under the purview of the term ‘commercial’ purpose. It has to be established the business of the company, activities of the party, and intended profit. Only averment, that it is registered under Company’s Act, will not be sufficient. The Opposite Party has failed to make out, what was the business of the Complainant, What profit was intended by the Complainant? In absence of this substantial information it cannot be inferred that the services availed by the Complainant and provided by the Opposite Party, were utilized for commercial purpose. Therefore, in our view, the Complainant is a consumer as user of the services of the Opposite Party as contemplated in Sec.2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.
27) In RAD Suit No.1751/07, the Hon’ble Small Causes Court has appointed a Commissioner and the Commissioner submitted his report according to which the Commissioner visited the premices in dispute.(62 A, Mittal Towers) on 16/04/2008. This report states - “It appears the possession of suit premises is with Plaintiffs” (the Complainant in case in hand i.e. M/s.M.K.International Ltd.) (Exhibit-‘F’ to the complaint).
28) It is also the fact that there is a dispute between the Complainant and the M/s.Janpriya Finance & Investment (India) Ltd.Co. It has been admitted by the Opposite Party in its written statement in para no.3 that there is the dispute between the above said parties and a RAD Suit No.1751/07 was pending before the Hon’ble Small Causes Court wherein the Complainant had alleged that M/s.Janpriya Finance & Investment (India) Ltd. is trying to forcibly dispossess the Complainant from property above mentioned. “From this it is clear that M/s.Janpriya Finance & Investment (India) Ltd.Co. has tried to change the original name Ganpati Comnines Ltd. and applied to the Opposite Party on 22/07/2008 requesting the Opposite Party to enter its own name (M/s.Janpriya Finance & Investment (India) Ltd.Co.) in the electric bill for the meter MO70148 and Opposite Party succumbed to this application for change of the name and in fact, changed the name from Ganpati Comnines Ltd. to M/s.Janpriya Fin & Ind Inv Ind.
29) Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances as well as the documentary evidence before us, we are of the opinion that the Opposite Party is deficient in service by changing the name of the electric bill holder of meter MO70148 at the Premises at 62 A, Mittal Towers, 6th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 21. Therefore, we pass the following order –
O R D E R
i.Complaint No.97/2009 is allowed.
ii. Opposite Party is directed to issue its electric bill for the meter No.MO70148 at 62A, Mittal Towers, A Wing, 6th
floor, Nariman Point Road, Mumbai – 400 021 in the name of Ganpati Comnines Ltd. as issued on 01/08/2008 and
it should be sent at the same address as mentioned in this bill i.e. 62A, Mittal Towers, Nariman Point
Road, Mumbai – 400 021.
iii.Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.3,000/-(Rs.Three Thousand Only) to the Complainant towards cost of this
complaint.
iv.Opposite Party is also directed to comply with the above said order within 15 days from the date of receipt of this
order.
v.Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
