The complainant’s case is as follows: The complainant is a tailor who leased out a room No.26/877 from the Assyrian Charities and carries his tailoring work there. The complainant was paying the electricity charges in respect of this room. The complainant paid the electricity charges regularly without making any default. The complainant received a notice from the respondent to pay Rs.6422/- as arrears of electricity charges up to 1/01. When he enquired about at the respondent’s office it was informed to remit Rs.5746/-. But the details such as quantity of electricity consumed and the period of consumption have not been mentioned in the bill. The complainant has not consumed as much electricity and hence the complainant is not liable to pay the bill. The complainant has complained about the defective meter. But the respondents have not cared to rectify the defects. The complainant has also remitted charges of excess electricity consumed by him. There are no arrears of electricity charges to be paid by the complainant. Hence the complaint is filed to set aside the bill.

            2. The averments in the counter are as follows: The disputed electrical connection is in the name of Assyrian Charities and it was a non-domestic connection under Tariff LT VII A. It is not correct to say that the complainant has paid the electricity charges regularly. Before the beginning of spot billing card system was prevailing by which a fixed amount based on the usage was marked in the card given to the consumers and additional bill was issued for the electricity consumed in excess after taking meter reading on every six months. The complainant has not filed any complaint to replace the electricity meter. When the room was occupied by the complainant there was dues of Rs.2457/-. The electric meter had no defects and the complainant had already remitted some of the additional bills. The additional bills are issued in time and these additional bills relate to the electricity consumed by the complainant and also used by the former consumer. The complainant is liable to pay the bill. Hence dismiss the complaint.

 

            3.The respondents filed additional counter stating that the complainant is not using the electricity connection for self employment by means of livelihood. He is using the connection for making profit by running commercial activities. So the complainant is not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act. 

 

           4.The points for consideration are :

1) Is the complaint maintainable before the Forum?

2) If so reliefs and costs?

 

            5.The evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P5 and Exhibit R1. No oral evidence adduced by both.

 

             6.Points : The case of complainant is that he has paid the electricity charges regularly. But the respondents issued a notice dated 30/4/03 demanding to pay Rs.6,420/- as dues up to 1/01. On enquiry made at the respondents office he was informed that the dues come to Rs.5,740/-. But the details as the quantity of electricity consumed and the period of consumption is not furnished. The complainant has paid the bill amount and according to him he has not used such quantity of electricity to derive at a huge bill. According to him he had requested to replace the defective electric meter. But the respondents did not do it. So the complainant is not liable to pay the bill amount. He stated that he is a Tailor and conducting tailoring work exclusively for the purpose of

 

earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.

            7.In the counter the respondents contended that the complainant is not doing the business for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. But he is doing the work for commercial purpose. So the issue of maintainability is to be decided first.

 

           8.In the complaint it is pleaded that the complainant is doing the tailoring work for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. But in the counter the respondents stated that it is not so and the complainant is running the tailoring work for commercial purposes. So it is the duty of complainant to prove that he is doing the tailoring work for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment and not for commercial purpose. The complainant produced 5 documents to prove his case. No oral evidence adduced by him even if chances were given. The documents produced by the complainant to substantiate the case are the Invoice card, bills, receipts and rent deed. These are not sufficient to prove that the complainant is running the tailoring shop for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. Section 2(1)d of the Consumer Protection Act would make it clear the definition of consumer. As per the definition the complainant had to prove that he is entitled to file the complaint before the Forum. There is no such attempt made by the complainant. So the complaint is found not maintainable. Without going through the merits of the case the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

            9.In the result the complaint stands dismissed.