Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/707

Amar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

JaspalSingh - Opp.Party(s)

02 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

 

Consumer Complaint No. 707 of 07.12.2015

Date of Decision          :   02.03.2017

 

Mr.Amar Singh Sidhu son of Late Shri Chanan Singh, Director GGS Network Pvt. Ltd & 7 Star TV Channel resident of VPO Moholi Khyurd PO Moholi Kalan, Tehsil Maler Kotla Distt. Sangrur Punjab, and Member of the United Nations Globle Compact, Human Rights of Asian Hong Kong as well as United Nations.

….. Complainant

Versus

 

Jaspal Singh son of Sh.Amolak Singh, resident of 33F, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana.

..…Opposite party

 

 (COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For Complainant                     :         Sh.R.S.Dhatt, Advocate

For OP                           :         Sh.Harpreet Singh, Advocate

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Complaint for recovery of loss amount of Rs.19,36,000/- filed by claiming the same to be suffered by the complainant due to non supply of electricity by the OP as per the terms and conditions of the agreement of lease. It is claimed that M/s GGS Network Pvt.Ltd./7Star TV Channel hired accommodation of OP at 17 Royal Apartment Opp. Anmol Market, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana @Rs.9500/- per month as per lease agreement. The premises got for establishment/installation of head end of the cable and TV Network. OP gave electric meter of 2 KW load against the requirement of 10 KW load for running TV channel. Complainant asked OP to increase the load to 10 KW, but Op disclosed that the meter is in the name of Mr.Parmodh Kumar, Flat No.6, due to which, he had been asked for extension of load. Thereafter, the complainant met Mr.Parmodh Kumar for extension of load, but he disclosed that he is not to give the meter connection to the complainant for its use. Electricity from the meter was disconnected on 1.7.2012. Complainant issued advance cheque of amount of Rs.73,500/- for payment of rent from 1^st July to 31^st December 2012. Request for releasing of electricity connection was put forth. However, the complainant called upon OP not to present the cheque for encashment in the bank for payment as    OP failed to provide the electricity meter to the complainant. However, OP sent the cheque for clearance in the bank and the same was dishonoured. In fact, the cheque was for advance payment. GGS Network Pvt. Ltd., is a registered company under the Company Act, 1956 and is meant for starting cable TV network. The company has arrived at agreement with main cable operators of District Pathankot, Gurdaspur, Kapurthala, Patiala, Sangrur, Barnala, Fatehgarh, Jagraon, Amritsar, Taran Taran etc. In fact, the complainant company is Multi System Operator Company for cable operators brought under existence under the provisions of Section 9.1 of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services Interconnection Regulations 2004). Main cable operators are at Patiala, Gurdaspur, Amritsar, Taran Taran, Sultanpur Lodhi(Kapurthala), Sangrur etc. GGS Network Pvt. Ltd/7 Star TV Channel hired accommodation of OP for installing/establishing the head end of the cable and TV network, the cost of which comes to Rs.10 crore. The company carries on the activities of providing people with use of something as electric power, water transportation, mail delivery, telephones etc and for further distribution of the cable network to all local cable operators of Punjab. As per agreement, the licensee to make the payment of the house tax, electricity bill and water & sewerage charges (if any) levied by the Municipal or other authorities qua the premises in question. Licensee entered into commercial agreement with the landlord for the premises got on rent. Provisions of Section 2(k) of  Telecommunication Service or of Section 15 of Electricity Act, 2003 or of Section 14(a)(i) of TRAI Act etc are cited for claiming that the complainant is consumer. Details there of need not be given because they are irrelevant for disposal of this complaint. Two service providers are at liberty to enter into commercial agreement, which need not be governed by subordinate legislation and as such, agreement is not prohibited by any statue. Op entered into an agreement with the complainant for providing accommodation, electricity and water supply for GGS Network. Payment for leased land, of amount of Rs.19,36,000/- to BSNL has been made and details of which has been given in para no.13 of the complaint. However, electricity supply is not provided, due to which, complainant claims to have suffered loss of Rs.19,36,000/- in respect of which claim put forth. That amount alleged to be including damages on account of mental tension, pain and agony.

2.                In written statement filed by Op, it is claimed that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Complaint alleged to be filed in counter blast to the already pending complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act qua dishonouring of the cheques issued by the complainant. Complainant is a huge defaulter of rent and this case has been filed just for covering his misdeeds. Dishonoured cheques were given to the complainant by OP in a compromise arrived at in the Lok Adalat presided by Ms.Pushpa Rani, the then learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Ludhiana. The said compromise was arrived in the suit filed by the complainant for permanent injunction against Op. Complainant is a lessee of OP, but he was never deprived of the amenity of electricity connection. Rather, the electricity connection has been installed in the flat in question. Unnecessarily sections of various acts have been quoted, albeit they have no relevancy. Admittedly, the flat in question got on lease by the complainant at Rs.9500/- per month for residential/office TV Network purpose. A lease agreement dated 10.5.2011 was executed between the parties. OP has never refused the electricity amenity to the complainant through electric meter already lying installed. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied.

3.                Complaint to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, Counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit of OP Sh.Jaspal Singh as Ex.RA along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R11 and then closed the evidence.

5.                Written arguments submitted by the complainant, but not by OP. Oral arguments of counsel for the parties heard. Records gone through minutely. 

6.                As per contents of para no.5 of the complaint, commercial agreement was arrived at with the landlord for getting the premises in question on rent. Further, as per contents of complaint, complainant was to establish the head end of cable and TV Network, due to which, services were to be provided to the main cable operators in various District of Punjab like Pathankot, Gurdaspur, Kapurthala, Patiala etc. So, these assertions in the complaint as well as in the affidavit Ex.CA of complainant enough to establish that the premises in question virtually got by the complainant on rent from OP for running business or carrying the commercial activities. If that be the position, then in absence of mentioning the fact that the said commercial activities carried on for earning livelihood, it has to be held that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As and when services availed for commercial purposes, then complainant concerned will not be a consumer, particularly when it is  not pleaded that the said services availed for running business for earning livelihood. In this case, it is also at all not pleaded that premises in question was got on rent for earning livelihood and as such, complainant is not a consumer. In holding this view, we are fortified by law laid down in cases Lords Wear Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rance Computer Pvt. Ltd.-I(2014)CPJ-332(N.C.); Torent Power Limited vs. Virma Devi-I(2014)CPJ-162(Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) and R.K.Handicraft and others vs. M/s Parmanand Ganda Singh & Company and others-II(2015)CPJ-13(N.C.).

7.                Documents Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 produced on record shows that the electricity connection is in the name of consumer Sh.Parmod Kumar, but in para no.1 of the complaint itself, it is mentioned that said Parmod Kumar is resident of Flat No.6. However, the agreement in question qua leasing of the premises in question is placed on record as Ex.C7 by the complainant, but Ex.R11 by OP. That agreement is with respect to Flat no.17 and not qua Flat no.16. Being so, it was the duty of the complainant to establish that these Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 in fact pertains to electric connection meant for use in let out premises of Flat No.17. In Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 or in any other document produced by the complainant, it is not mentioned that these documents pertains to the supply of electricity to the premises of Flat No.17, got on lease by the complainant from Op. Being so, these documents are not relevant for disposal of this case at all.

8.                If notices Ex.C4 and Ex.C5 from BSNL got by the complainant with respect to outstanding due amount against him, then OP has nothing to do there with because he has disputed the claim of the complainant qua non supply of the electricity to him (complainant). Whether or not the electricity connection actually provided continuously to the complainant, that disputed question of fact can be decided by the competent Civil Court and not by this Forum in summary proceedings and as such also the complaint is not maintainable.

9.       Perusal of Memorandum of Association & Articles of Association of GGS Network Private Limited Ex.C6 further establishes that the said concern established for carrying on business of running of TV channels in India as well as

abroad. Being so, this document Ex.C6 enough to establishes that premises in question got by the complainant for carrying on business at large scale for earning profits. Being so, the complainant is not a consumer, particularly when the complainant has not mentioned in the complaint that business carried for earning livelihood alone.

10.              Besides as per the terms of lease agreement Ex.C7=Ex.R11, liability of paying house tax, electricity bill and water & sewerage charges to be that of complainant as lessee. So, even if assuming for arguments for sake that electricity not made available to complainant by OP, despite that the complainant on basis of lease agreement Ex.C7=Ex.R11 could have approached PSPCL authorities for supply of electricity, but no such action shown to be taken and as such, virtually the complaint seems to be filed with some ulterior motive.

11.              Ex.R1 is the copy of statement suffered by the complainant in proceedings of the civil suit of permanent injunction, whereas Ex.R2 is the copy of statement suffered by OP in that suit,  in pursuance of which, cheque      No.918960 of Rs.21,000/- was received by counsel for OP. Even cheque No.918958 dated 15.1.2013 of ICICI Bank of amount of Rs.52,500/- was received by OP as revealed by contents of Ex.R2. After receipt of cheques, civil suit was withdrawn by the complainant on 17.12.2012 is a fact borne from the contents of copy of order Ex.R4. Copy of cheque of Rs.52,500/- dated 15.1.2013, but of cheque     of Rs.21,000/- dated 3.2.2013 are produced on record as Ex.R5 and Ex.R6. These cheques remained dishonoured and that is why they were returned vide memo Ex.R7 and Ex.R8, due to which, OP has to file complaint against complainant u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a fact borne from the contents of copy of complaint Ex.R9 dated 6.4.2013. On the basis of that complaint, notice of accusation dated 4.9.2013 Ex.R10 was served on OP by learned JMIC, Ludhiana. Copy of electricity consumption bills in the name of OP are produced on record Ex.R12 and Ex.R13. These shows the OK status of meter during 2014 and as such, certainly submissions advanced by counsel for OP has force that story qua non supply of electricity to the complainant has been put forth for filing this complaint in counter blast to the complaint filed by the complainant in 2013.Provisions of cited Acts are not relevant for finding, if the complainant is consumer or not. Rather,    provisions of Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are alone relevant and legal position in that respect has already been discussed above for finding that the complainant is not a consumer of OP due to getting of flat in question on lease for carrying out commercial activities. Besides, perusal of Section 10 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 reveals that if any amenity withheld by the landlord from a tenant without any sufficient cause, then the Rent Controller after conduct of an enquiry may make an order directing the landlord to restore such amenity. So, proof of enjoyment of the amenities and withholding    of the same without sufficient cause has to be adduced by the tenant. Proof of withholding the amenity without sufficient cause or of actual cutting of the same by the complainant not adduced, particularly when in the complaint, complainant himself claims that through electric meter load of 2 KW provided, despite requirement of 10 KW. In agreement Ex.C7 of Ex.R11 mention is not at all made as to what load of electricity to be provided by the OP to the complainant. In absence of any clause qua providing of 10 KW load by the OP to the complainant in Ex.C7=Ex.R11, it has to be held that the complaint has been filed for getting relief beyond the terms of the lease agreement Ex.C7=Ex.R11. Being so, complaint cannot be said to be filed for getting due relief against the landlord. Rather, the complaint has been filed for getting the relief not contemplated by the terms of the lease agreement Ex.C7=Ex.R11 and as such, complaint is  not maintainable.

12.              Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint dismissed without any order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

13.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                      (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                      (G.K.Dhir)

                       Member                                                President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:02.03.2017.

Gurpreet Sharma.