BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                            Complaint No.: 272 of 2014.

                                                            Date of Institution: 16.9.2014.

                                                            Date of Decision: 13-3-2015.

Parvinder Singh son of Shri Ram Singh, resident of Amar Nagar, Bhiwani.

                                                             ….Complainant.

                                  Versus

1. The Sub Divisional Officer (Urban) Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Bhiwani.
2.  The Executive Engineer, Operation, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Bhiwani.
3. Superintending Engineer, DHBVNL, Bhiwani.
4. The Managing Director, D.H.B.V.N. Vidhut Nagar, Hissar.

                                           …...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 Ram Singh, father of the complainant in person.  

Shri R.S.Sharma, Adv. for respondents.

ORDER

                 The case of the complainant, in brief, is that is having an electricity connection bearing account No.PP-21/1001 and has been making payment of electricity charges regularly, hence he is consumer qua respondents. It is alleged that at the time of releasing connection the sanctioned load was 0.600 but after some time the respondents indicated the load as1.600 KW-2.00 KW in place of 0.600 in the bills wrongly and illegally. The complainant further alleged that he requested the respondents to rectify the same but they did not pay any heed. The complainant further alleged that on 15.2.2013 the officials of the respondents had checked his premises and found load as 0.700 KW and thereafter they took the meter in their possession for checking the same in Laboratory and installed another meter. The complainant further alleged that the respondents have been sending the bills on average basis which is wrong, illegal, arbitrary and 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 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 electricity connection bearing account No.PP-21/1001 provided to the complainant under NDS category and as such the complaint of the complainant does not falls under the jurisdiction of this Forum. It is also submitted that the complainant is not making payment of electricity charges since, 2012 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: 13-3-2015.

                                                            President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

((Balraj Singh)   (Anita Sheoran)

 Member            Member.