PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER These revision petitions have been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 27.12.2010, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in cross appeals Nos. 2061 & 1927/2002, vide which, Appeal No. 2061/2002 filed by the OP Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (HVPNL) was accepted, while the other appeal No. 1927/2002 filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation was dismissed. Consequently, the order passed by the District Forum, Karnal dated 25.07.2002, passed in consumer complaint No. 1200/99 filed by the present petitioner, allowing the said complaint was set aside and the complaint was dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Hari Chand took the cold storage, Hansi Road, Karnal on lease for a period of one year with effect from 01.01.99 from its owner, and he had been using electric connection No. MS-27 installed at the premises of the said cold storage. It is alleged by the complainant that he received exaggerated bills for the consumption of electricity from the opposite party (OP)/respondents for the months of May 1999 to September 1999. The complainant filed an application with OP-2, SDO, requesting for checking of the electric meter installed at the premises. The OP-2 allowed the complainant to deposit amounts of ₹60,000/-, ₹80,000/-, ₹90,000/- and ₹80,000/- for the months of June 1999 to September 1999 against the bills sent by them, which were for higher amounts. The complainant requested for installation of a check-meter in parallel with the existing meter in order to check the correctness of the existing meter, but there was no positive response from the OPs. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OPs to install a check-meter in parallel with the existing meter and to send revised bills for the months of June 1999 onwards and also to pay a compensation of ₹10,000/- alongwith cost of litigation of ₹2,200/-. 3. The consumer complaint was resisted by the OPs by filing a written statement before the District Forum, in which they took a preliminary objection that the electric connection MS-27 was in the name of Om Prakash and hence, the complainant did not come under the category of consumer and he had no locus standi to file the complaint. The OPs replied that on the request of the complainant, the check meter was installed on 10.11.99. It was found from the readings that the consumption as shown by the check-meter was more than that shown by the existing meter, meaning thereby that the meter installed at the premises was slow by 25.7%. The complainant was, therefore, liable to make payment on the basis of the readings shown in the check-meter. 4. The District Forum after taking into account the averments of the parties, decided to send the disputed matter to the Chief Electrical Inspector, Haryana for deciding the accuracy of the meter. The said Chief Electrical Inspector, vide his Award dated 03.05.2002, stated that the bill for 01.04.99 to 31.12.99 should be charged on the basis of the average monthly consumption for the previous year, i.e., 01.04.1998 to 31.03.1999. The excess amount should be refunded to the complainant. Based on the verdict of the Chief Electrical Inspector, the District Forum decided the complaint vide their order dated 25.07.2002 and directed the OP to overhaul the account of the complainant for the disputed period, i.e., April 1999, till the replacement of the defective meter; on the basis of average consumption of the corresponding months in the preceding year. The complainant was directed to pay the amount within 15 days of the receipt of the overhauled bill. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the OP/respondent challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission and the said appeal was accepted vide impugned order dated 27.12.2010, only on the ground that the complainant could not prove that he came under the definition of ‘consumer’, as he failed to provide evidence that he took the cold storage on lease for a period of one year. The consumer complaint was ordered to be dismissed. Being aggrieved against the said order, the complainant is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition. 5. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the documents already placed on record, Om Prakash was recorded as a consumer in the record of the Haryana State Electricity Board. Subsequently, the cold storage was taken on lease by the petitioner/complainant. The signatures of the complainant Hari Chand are there on the documents, by which the meter was handed over to the Chief Electrical Inspector for checking. The learned counsel argued that the petitioner fell under the definition of consumer, as given in section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as he was a beneficiary of the services provided by the respondent/OP. The learned counsel further stated that the matter pertained to the year 2001, while the amendment in the Consumer Protection Act was made with effect from 15.03.2003, according to which a person availing of a service for commercial purpose was not a consumer. Moreover, it has been held by this Commission in the case of “PSEB vs. Guriqbal Singh Batra” (FA No. 19/1999 decided on 19.07.2002), that a tenant in occupation of the premises and using the electricity and paying the bills, falls under the definition of consumer. 6. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. 7. The main point for consideration before us is whether the complainant comes under the definition of ‘consumer’ or not. A perusal of the material on file indicates that the respondent/OP in their memo of appeal filed before the State Commission admitted that the complainant had taken the cold storage on lease from its partner Arvind Kumar for a period of two years and the possession of the leased premises had been taken over by him from 01.01.99 and since then, he had been using electric connection No. MS-27 installed in the premises of the said cold storage. It is not understood, therefore, how the State Commission concluded that the complainant could not prove that he was a consumer. The definition of consumer as contained in section 2(1)(d)(ii) says as follows:- “hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who 'hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes” 8. It is clear from the above definition that the beneficiary of a service also falls under the category of a consumer. Even if the complainant was not able to provide evidence that he had taken the premises on lease, the facts and circumstances on record make it amply clear that the complainant has been in control of the premises in question and has been availing himself of the services provided by the OP. Moreover there is weight in the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the matter pertains to the year 2001, i.e., before the amendment in the Act came into force with effect from 15.03.2003 and hence, the clause ‘commercial purpose’ is not attracted in the present case. Further, it has also been made clear in PSEB vs. Guriqbal Singh Batra” (supra), that the tenant of a premises, who is consuming electricity and pays the bills, comes under the category of consumer. The orders passed by the State Commission is, therefore, perverse in the eyes of law and the same deserves to be set aside. 9. It has been stated in the reply filed by the OP before the District Forum that the test meter was installed at the premises in November 1999. As per the readings taken in the test meter, the consumption was rather more than that shown by the regular meter. It is not understood how the Chief Electrical Inspector concluded that the payment should be made, based on the average readings for the previous year. 10. From the foregoing discussion, this revision petition is allowed, the order passed by the State Commission is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the State Commission for deciding the appeal on merits, after considering the averments made by the parties and after obtaining evidence filed by the parties, regarding the running of the meter. The State Commission should bring out clearly whether the charges levied by the OPs in the bills issued by them were on the higher side, keeping in view the readings obtained through the test meter. 11. Both the parties have been directed to appear before the State Commission for further proceedings on 20.04.2017. There shall be no order as to costs. |
