BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                            Complaint No.: 79 of 2012.

                                                            Date of Institution: 2.2.2012.

                                                            Date of Decision: 25-3-2015.

Umed Singh son of Shri Chandgi Ram, resident of Ishwarwal, tehsil Siwani, district Bhiwani.

                                                             ….Complainant.

                                  Versus

1.  Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Hissar, through its Chairman/Managing Director.
2.  The Executive Engineer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Siwani, district Bhiwani.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer, D.H.B.V.N. Siwani, district Bhiwani.

                                           …...Respondents.

                 COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF

                 THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Sitting:      Shri B.D.Yadav, President,

                 Shri Balraj Singh, Member,

                 Smt. Anita Sheoran, Member,

Present:    Shri B.S.Sihag, Adv. for complainant.  

Shri  B.R.Raparia, Adv. for respondents.

ORDER

                 The case of the complainant, in brief, is that is having an electricity connection bearing account No.II21-0772 and has been making payment of electricity charges regularly, hence he is consumer qua the respondents.  It is alleged that the meter was burnt in the month of July, 2007 and the respondents were requested to replace the meter vide application dated 19.7.2007. It is further alleged that the officials of the Nigam visited the spot and reported that the meter is “OK” and thereafter they have got deposited a sum of Rs.740/- being the costs of the meter. The complainant further alleged that he visited the office of respondents and requested to rectify the bills and to replace the meter. It is further alleged that on 31.10.2011 Shri Chhotu Ram official of the visited the house after expiry of two and half months and reported that meter burnt terminal and total load was also found to be 3.9 KWs. The complainant further alleged that on the basis of report made by the official he requested the respondents to replace the burnt meter and to rectify the bills but instead of doing the needful they have issued a bill amounting to Rs.46804/- which is wrong, illegal, arbitrary, against law and facts and he is not liable to pay the same. The complainant further alleged that he visited the office of respondents several times and requested to rectify the bills and to replace the burnt meter but they did not pay any heed. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such, he has to file the present complaint.

2.              Respondents on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant is not a consumer and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is submitted that the complainant has not deposited the bill since March, 2011 up to date and as such PDCO was effected on 23.12.2011. Now the outstanding amount in the account of complainant during Jan. 2012 is Rs.54391/- and his connection was restored vide reconnection order No.87/942 dated 6.2.2012 effected on 10.202012 as per order passed by this Forum on depositing a sum of Rs.23402/-. So, the complainant is liable to deposit the remaining amount outstanding towards him. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such, complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.              Both the parties filed their duly sworn affidavits in their evidence to prove their respective versions along with documents. 

4.              We have heard learned counsel for the complainant in ex parte at length.

5.              At the very outset the question before us is whether the complainant falls under the definition of consumer or not as defined in Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As per the Act a person who avails the services for any commercial purpose is not included in the definition of consumer. We can draw support from SDO City Bhiwani V/s Ghanshayam Sharma decided on 10.9.2012 in which the Hon’ble State Commission has taken the similar view. The electricity connection was provided to the complainant for NDS category and there is no evidence to prove that the electricity connection was being used for earning his livelihood by means of self employment and thus the services of respondents have been availed for commercial purpose and as such, the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1) (d) (ii) of the C.P.Act, and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

         Accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. However, in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Luxmi Engineering Works Versus P.S.G. Industries Institute (1995) s SCC 583 the complainant may seek exemption/condonation of the time spent before this Forum to avail remedy before the Civil Court or competent authority, within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this order, if so advised. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 25-3-2015.

                                                            President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

((Balraj Singh)   (Anita Sheoran)

 Member            Member.