BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 406 of 2013.
Date of Institution: 27.8.2013.
Date of Decision: 9-3-2015.
Vinod Kumar son of Shri Om Parkash Jangra, resident of New Tegor Nagar, Bank Colony, Rohtak Road, B Gate, Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Hissar, through its Chairman/Managing Director.
- The Superintending Engineer, “OP”,Circle, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Bhiwani.
- The Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division No.1, D.H.B.V.N. Bhiwani.
…...Respondents.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Sitting: Shri B.D.Yadav, President,
Shri Balraj Singh, Member,
Amt. Anita Sheoran, Member,
Present: Shri Rajbir Singh, Adv. for the complainant.
Shri Rajesh Tanwar, Adv. for respondents.
ORDER
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that on20.2.2007 he applied for new NDS connection for his shop and deposited the security for a sum of Rs.5300/- vide receipt No.383. It is alleged that the respondents have installed the dead meter in his hop and issued the bills on average basis. The complainant further alleged that on 16.7.2007 he closed the shop and deposited the bill amount for a sum of Rs.4590/- and requested the respondents to refund the security amount. The complainant further alleged that he visited the office of respondents several times and requested to refund the security amount 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 also submitted that this is a case of unauthorized use of electricity, tempering of meter and such mater of technical nature cannot be decided by the Consumer Forum. 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 complainant himself admitted that he had taken electricity connection for his shop 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: 9-3-2015.
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
((Balraj Singh) (Anita Sheoran)
Member Member.
