APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

PRONOUNCED ON :  27^TH MARCH 2017

O R D E R

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER

          This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 30.06.2009, passed by the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 397/2006, “Bihar State Electricity Board vs. Chandramajeet Singh”, vide which, while allowing the appeal, the order dated 17.02.2006, passed by the District Forum Saran, Chapra in complaint case No. 59/2003, filed by the present petitioner, allowing the said complaint, was set aside.

2.       The facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant Chandramajeet Singh had obtained a domestic connection from the opposite party (OP), Bihar State Electricity Board vide consumer No. 8042.  It is alleged that in November 2002, the OP converted the said connection to a commercial connection, without giving any notice to the complainant and began sending bills for commercial connection.  The complainant sent written application to the OP, objecting against the conversion of domestic connection to commercial connection, but without success.  It has been mentioned in the consumer complaint itself that the complainant had got five shops built in front of his residential house in the year 2002, for which no connection was obtained by the complainant.  It is further stated that the complainant went on paying the bills as per the demand raised by the OP Board, but still, some officials of the Board came to his residence on 08.03.2003 and stated that a fine of ₹28,000/- had been imposed upon him.  They also told him that the matter could be finalised if 50% of the said amount was paid by the complainant.  On his refusal to do so, the electric connection to his premises was cut off on 08.03.2003.  The complainant filed application with the Board narrating the entire situation, upon which the electric connection was restored, but it was disconnected again on the next day, i.e., 12.03.2003, but was reconnected on 18.03.2003.  Alleging deficiency in service and harassment on the part of the OPs, the complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, demanding a sum of ₹2,12,000/- as compensation from the OP Board under various heads. 

3.       The complaint was resisted by the OP Board by filing a written statement, in which it was stated that the connection was disconnected, because the complainant failed to pay his outstanding dues.  It is also mentioned in the written reply that there were dues of ₹337/- with the complainant after adjusting the amount of security.

4.       The District Forum after considering the averments of the parties, allowed the complaint vide their order dated 17.02.2006 and directed that the bills sent by the OP as per which, commercial charges had been levied should be cancelled and the amended bill according to domestic connection should be sent to him.  It was also directed that if the complainant was using electricity in the shops, then after conducting an inquiry and giving notice, the OP should charge from the complainant as per commercial connection.  Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the OP Board challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission held that the complainant was wrongly and illegally using the domestic connection for supplying electricity to the shop premises.  Moreover, he used a load of 2 KW against the sanctioned load of 1 KW.  The same was revealed from an inspection report made by the OP Board.  The State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum.  Being aggrieved against the said order of the State Commission, the complainant is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

5.       The learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner argued during hearing that the OP Board had converted the domestic connection into commercial connection without giving any notice to him.  The order passed by the District Forum, therefore, reflected a correct appreciation of the facts and circumstances on record and should be restored.  The learned counsel has drawn attention to section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003, saying that a notice in writing with clear 15 days should have been given, if the electricity supply was to be disconnected in default of payment.  In the present case, no notice had been issued before changing the domestic connection into commercial connection.  The cross-examination of Ashok Kumar, Junior Engineer with the Board conducted on 04.07.2005 had revealed that no such notice had been issued.

6.       The learned counsel for the OP Board submitted that the complaint in the present form was not maintainable, as the complainant did not come under the definition of ‘consumer’.  The learned counsel has drawn attention to an order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “UP Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. vs. Anis Ahmed” [III (2013) CPJ (1) SC],.  The learned counsel has further drawn attention to an order passed by this Commission in “Ramnath Panjiyar vs. Urban Electric Supply Division & Ors. [IV (2014) CPJ 143 (NC)]”, saying that whenever there was consumption of electricity in excess of the sanctioned load, it would amount to an unauthorised use of electricity under section 126 of Electricity Act and the consumer fora shall not have any jurisdiction to deal with the complaint.  The learned counsel stated that on inspection, the complainant was found using more load than the sanctioned load and hence, the action taken by the OP Board was in accordance with law.

7.       We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.

8.       A simple perusal of the consumer complaint in question reveals that as per the own version of the complainant, he had built five shops in front of his residential house in the year 2002.  The complainant has not stated anywhere whether any separate commercial connection had been obtained for the said shops.  The complainant has nowhere denied that his domestic connection was not used for supplying electricity to the said shops.  The action of the OP Board, therefore, in converting the domestic connection to commercial connection was based on the factual position on the ground.  The complainant has also admitted that he kept on making payment to the OP Board, although charges were levied for commercial connection.  In case, the complainant was not using electricity for commercial purpose, he should have raised objection then and there and asked the Board to rectify the bills, rather than making payment for commercial connection.  It has further been stated in the affidavit filed by Ashok Kumar, Junior Engineer that the connection was disconnected due to non-payment of dues. It is made out, therefore, that the complainant has been using domestic connection for commercial purpose and also, he was defaulter in the payment of dues to the OP Board.  The complainant has also not denied that he used electricity more than the sanctioned load. 

9.         Based on the facts and circumstances as stated above, it is held that the order passed by the State Commission does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error, as the same is based on the factual position about the said electric connection on the ground.  In addition, relying upon the order made by this Commission in ““Ramnath Panjiyar vs. Urban Electric Supply Division & Ors.”(supra), it is held that the complaint was not maintainable, as the complainant was using load in excess of the sanctioned load.  Accordingly, this revision petition is ordered to be dismissed and the order passed by the State Commission is upheld.  There shall be no order as to costs.