NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2933/2010

ISHWAR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

DAKSHIN HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. MOHIT MUDGIL

21 Jan 2011

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 2933 OF 2010
 
(Against the Order dated 27/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1120/2004 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. ISHWAR SINGH
R/o. Village Muzafara, Tehsil Pataudi
Gurgaon
Haryana
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. DAKSHIN HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD.
Through its Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division Pataudi
Gurgaon
Haryana
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :MR. MOHIT MUDGIL
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 21 Jan 2011
ORDER

 

PER MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

The electric connection of Atta Chakki  installed in the house of Complainant was inspected on 23.11.2000 by the S.D.O. of the Opposite Party.  During inspection,  malpractices/theft  was noticed that there was direct supply of PVC joint.  Notice for imposing penalty of Rs.10,195/-  was issued.  The Complainant filed reply before the authorities and subsequently challenged the action of the Opposite Party by filing consumer complaint.  The District Forum quashed the penalty.  The Opposite Party filed appeal before the State Commission.

  The State Commission allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint. 

Heard Counsel for the Complainant.  The case of the Complainant is that he has domestic Atta Chakki connection under A/c No.GC-61.  The respondents in their reply denied that it was domestic connection.  The Respondents also took the plea that the Forum has no jurisdiction since the Complainant was found to have committed theft of energy from the PVC joint prior to the meter by connecting 5 meter 2 core PVC wire for no domestic purpose.  The electric connection is admittedly for Atta Chakki but the dispute is whether it is a domestic connection or commercial connection. The opposite party has denied that it was domestic connection. Complainant has not produced any material before us to show that it was a domestic connection. Apparently, Atta Chakki even though installed in the house would be for commercial purpose and no where it has been pleaded that the Atta Chakki was being used for own use of the Complainant or that the Atta Chakki was meant for his livelihood.  No material has been produced before us by the Complainant so as to come to the conclusion that the Complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, inasmuch as services for commercial purpose are excluded thereunder. Besides this in case of theft of electricity Consumer fora have no jurisdiction to go into such issues. In view of this, we are of the opinion that the Complainant, prima facie, is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii)  of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the complaint before  the Consumer Forum was not maintainable. 

In view of this, the revision filed by the Petitioner stands dismissed as also the complaint filed by him.  In the facts and circumstances,   there shall be no order as to cost.

 
......................J
R.K. BATTA
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
VINAY KUMAR
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.