BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.574 of 2019

      Date of Instt. 06.12.2019

      Date of Decision: 22.12.2020

Guru Nanak Cold Store, Shahkot, District Jalandhar through its Partner Suba Singh.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Chairman, Shakti Sadan, Punjab State Power Corporation       Limited, Mall Road, Patiala.

2.       Assistant Executive Engineer (Division), PSPCL Sub Division,         Shahkot, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Sh. Kuljit Singh             (President)

Smt. Jyotsna                   (Member)

Present:       Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   Sh. K. L. Dua, Adv. Counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2.

Order

Kuljit Singh (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant M/s Guru Nanak Cold Store is the actual consumer of the commercial electricity connection bearing A/c No.X44MS440040x lying installed at the business premises of the complainant i.e. Shahkot, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. That the meter of the said connection is lying installed outside the premises of the complainant M/s Guru Nanak Cold Store. That the connection is regularly checked by the officials of OPs and at the time of checking meter reading, electricity consumption bill is generated and handed over to the complainant. That the OPs are engaged in providing service of electricity for charges and the connection of the complainant falls within the jurisdiction of the OP No.2. The complainant is availing the services of OP No.2 for charges, thus the complainant is consumer under the meaning of Electricity Act. That the consumption of the electricity by the complainant is between 25000 units to 30000 units per billing cycle and as per the consumption, the complainant paying the consumption charges regularly to the PSPCL department. That in the month of April 2019 the old reading was 1268 and new reading as per electricity was consumed upto 28770 and according bill was charged for Rs.1,83,760/- for 29978 units and till June 2019 the electricity bills have been normally charged from the complainant according to the consumed electricity but in the month of the May, 2019 on checking of the meter, it was found that the foundation of CT/PT was made on temporarily basis and it was required to permanently converted the same, the copy of receipt of checking bearing Book No.296 Page No.17 dated 14.05.2019 is attached with the file. That the electric meter of the complainant was checked by the OP No.2 at their own and after the said checking of 14.05.2019, the bill for July 2019 was raised for the amount of Rs.5,17,440/- for 30769 units and in the said Bill for July 2019 Rs.62,709/- were added as misc. expenses. That again by raising excess units the officials of OP No.2 issued a bill of August 2019 to the complainant by claiming the amount of the Rs.5,57,200/- from the complainant inspite of having entire previous record of the complainant which shows the average consumption of electricity by the complainant. The complainant shocked to see again the said Bill for August, 2019 for Rs.5,57,200/- as it is beyond the capacity of the complainant to pay such a huge amount to the OP that too without any cause or reason. The officials of OP No.2 were having full knowledge that the meter has suffered some technical default and the complainant is not responsible for paying such amount for the units which has not even consumed in any manner. The complainant is not liable to pay the same as he has done nothing wrong and is totally innocent. In fact, at the time of checking the meter some technical default has happened with the meter. But inspite of knowing each and every fact, the complainant paid the said bills. That again in September 2019 the officials of OP No.2 issued a bill to the complainant by claiming the amount of Rs.5,18,000/- from the complainant inspite of having entire previous record of the complainant. The complainant requested the officials of OP No.2 to make necessary correction in the current bill as well as in the previous bills raised to the complainant, but the officials of OP No.2 openly refused to correct the same. That now again in October 2019 the officials of OP No.2 issued a bill to the complainant by claiming the amount of Rs.5,01,820/- from the complainant inspite of having entire previous record of the complainant. The complainant requested the officials of OP No.2 to make necessary correction in the current bill as well as in the previous bills raised to the complainant, but the officials of the OP no.2 openly refused to correct the same. That as the above mentioned cold store is the only source of income of the complainant and is livelihood of the complainant and his family members and the complainant is unable to pay such a huge amount of electricity bill for such a small scale unit, which the complainant alongwith other partners are running to earning livelihood of their families. If the OPs succeeded in their evil designs by disconnecting the electricity connection of this small scale unit, the complainant as well as other partners shall suffer a huge loss which could lead to their starvation. That after receiving bill, the complainant approached the OP No.2 and requested them to rectify the bill of September 2019 wrongly charged upon him for the consumption of electricity units. The complainant also agreed to make the payment of normal used units by him but the OP No.2 flatly refused to accept the genuine request of the complainant rather threatened the complainant that they will disconnect the connection in case the complainant did not pay the entire amount of electricity bills. That the complainant is apprehension that due to non payment of illegal bill raised by the OP No.2, the OP No.2 might disconnect the electricity connection and due to this the complainant will suffer irreparable loss in terms of money and money worth. That vide a written application dated 14.10.2019, the complainant also moved to XEN, Nakodar, copy of the same is also attached, but no action has been taken on the said application and even no reply has been made by the OPs to the complainant as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to review the notice of electricity bill of Rs.5,18,000/- charge from the complainant illegally and unlawfully, in the interest of justice and further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and physical torture to the complainant.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared through its counsel and filed joint written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the Guru Nanak Cold Store Complainant is a commercial Unit and is doing the commercial activities, as such it is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, so this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. It is further alleged that the present complaint is bad for non joinder of parties. The CSE Cell of the PSPCL, Kapurthala is a necessary party who used to prepare the bill. So the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this sole score. It is further alleged that the complainant is a habitual defaulter and is a Chronic litigant and has filed this false and frivolous complaint just to delay the legal payment in respect of the electricity consumed by the complainant with malafide intention. It is further alleged that no cause of action arose to the complainant to file the present false and frivolous complaint. It is further alleged that the present complaint is the misuse of the process of this Forum. That complainant has changed the partnership deed by changing the partners. The complainant was legally bound to inform regarding the change of the constitution of the Partnership Deed within 6 months as per the Regulation 30.1 of the ESIM as such the present complaint has not been filed by the competent person. It is further averred that the present complaint is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties. The chairman and assistant executive engineer in their individual capacity are not the necessary parties, as the Punjab State Power Corporation is an autonomous body created under the provision of the Statue and such the PSPCL is a necessary party. It is further alleged that the false and frivolous complaint is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs to the tune of Rs.20,000/- under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act. On merits, it is admitted that the electricity connection installed at the business premises of the complainant, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Replication not filed.

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties produced on the file their respective documents.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very carefully.

6.                Before imparting with the main controversy, between the parties, we preferred to, firstly take a legal issue raised by the OPs in the written statement that the Guru Nanak Cold Store Complainant is a Commercial Unit and is doing the commercial activities, as such it is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act and complainant totally failed to prove this point whether the cold store is the only source of income of the complainant and is livelihood of the complainant and his family members. Even this aspect again raised by the OP in its affidavit Ex.OP-1/A filed by one Er. Balwinder Singh, Additional Superintending of the OP Company, but this evidence of the OP again not controverted by the complainant in his affidavit. So, it means that the complainant has indirectly admitted that the Guru Nanak Cold Store was for business purpose as well as for commercial use. It is not a case of the complainant that the same is for earning his livelihood, being reason the complainant is not a single person rather it is a company and having five partners as per Partnership Deed Ex.C-9, if so, then we are of the considered opinion that the Guru Nanak Cold Store is for business purpose and for commercial use and in support of these observations, we take an opportunity to refer some relevant judgments of the Hon’ble National Commission/State Commission, cited in 2015 (2) CPJ 13, titled as “M/s R. K. Handicrafts and another Vs. M/s Parma Nand Ganda Singh and Co. & others”, wherein his Lordship held as under:-

“Purchase of diesel generator set – Defects – Not replaced – Complaint filed – Dismissal of – Hence, revision petition – Generator was purchased for generating electricity to run the factory for manufacture of handloom products – Complainant not consumer – Complaint was rightly dismissed, as not maintainable”.   

On the same point, we further like to refer an other pronouncement of Hon’ble National Commission, cited in 2014(1) CPJ 332, titled as “Lords Wear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rance Computers Pvt. Ltd.”, wherein his Lordship held as under:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2(1)(d) and 21 (b) Purchase of software – During installation, software not found functional – Defects in removed – Complaint allowed – Order reversed by state commission – Challenged by revision – Held, purchased by private limited company and not by any individual – It has nowhere been pleaded that Managing Director is running business in name of complainant for earning his livelihood – Thus, complainant is not a consumer – Interference declined in impugned order.”  

We further take an opportunity to refer an other pronouncement of the Hon’ble National Commission, cited in 2015(4) CLT 265, titled as “Pharos Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Tata Motors Ltd.”, wherein his Lordship held as under:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2(1)(d) Consumer complaint – Car purchased by a Pvt. Ltd. Company in the year 2013 – It was found later that car was manufactured in the year 2012 – Complaint filed – Maintainability of complaint in question – Car in question not purchased exclusively for the livelihood of the Director or for his personal use – He has to use the car only for commercial purposes – In case the companies are allowed to save the court fees, the very purpose of ordinary consumer or as defined by the Act shall stand defeated – As such, present complaint is not maintainable and is dismissed in limine.”

We further like to refer an other pronouncement of Hon’ble National Commission, cited in 2015(4) CLT 37, titled as “NIKI-TA Care Vs. Surya Palace”, wherein his Lordship held as under:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2(1)(d) Commercial purpose- Elevator in hotel – Execution – Objection that lift installed in hotel is for commercial purpose – Objection raised for the first time before State Commission – National Commission held that this objection can be raised even at the stage of execution of the Decree – Consequently this objection has to be left out of consideration – Hence, consumer fora has no jurisdiction to try this case – Complaint dismissed with liberty to seek redressal of grievance before proper forum as per law”.

Further, we also like to refer an other pronouncement of Hon’ble National Commission, cited in 2015(4) CPR 255, titled as “Manu Talwar & Anr. Vs. BPTP Limited”, wherein his Lordship held as under:-

“A. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2(1)(d) Consumer–Definition and scope of–Services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood– Explanation appended thereto–Cannot be equated with extension of business activities which are already in existence.

“B. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2(1)(d) Consumer – Definition and scope of – Question to be considered as to whether complainants, who transact business in partnership, under name and style of “Objects D’ Art India” are ‘Consumers’?” – Held, in negative.”

 7.               If we see the case of the complainant in the light of the above discussion coupled with the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble National Commission/State Commission, we find that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and accordingly, the same is dismissed, with liberty to the complainant to file the same before the appropriate Forum/Court, if complainant desired, with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work. 

8.               Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated                                       Jyotsna                           Kuljit Singh

22.12.2020                              Member                          President