Extract order No. 11 dtd. 24/11/2017                                    

                              The case  is posted today for order on petition filed by the OP No.4 on dtd.13.09.2017, challenging the maintainability of the complaint. Copy of the petition duly served on complainant, who filed the objection to the petition. Heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Learned Counsel for OP No.4 submits that, the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum, as complainant can not be treated as a ‘Consumer’ as defined in the C.P.Act,1986 as complainant has not paid any ‘consideration’ to the OP-Electricity authority to ‘hire’ their service for availing a new service connection in his name, rather in para 5 of the complaint reveals that OP No.4 is the permanent consumer of electricity on the same plot and OP No.4 prays to allow the petition. Learned Counsel appearing for the OP-Electricity authority agreed with the submission of Learned counsel for OP No.4. Opposing the petition, Learned counsel appearing for complainant submits that the complainant is a consumer as defined in the C.P.Act and the complaint is maintainable as per the order of this Forum in C.C.Case No.69/16 and the petition filed by OP No.4 can not be treated as a preliminary  issue.

                 Considering the submissions of the parties, it is the settled position of law that, when a petition is filed on grounds of maintainability, same is to be heard and disposed on the first instance. The present dispute relates to definition of ‘consumer’ which is embodied in Sec.2(d)(ii) of the C.P.Act,1986. The definition ‘in short’ reveals that ‘any person who (hires or avails of ) any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid……….’. But in the instant case complaint is completely silent and no document is produced regarding payment of any ‘consideration’ to the OP-electricity authority to avail their service, hence complainant is failed to comply the provisions of Sec.2(d)(ii) of C.P.Act,1986. The next plea of the complainant as the matter has already been decided in the C.C.Case No.69/2016 earlier, the complainant is a consumer under Ops. In this regard, we, opine that the order of the C.C.Case No.69/2016 is not applicable into the present proceeding as facts and circumstances of the C.C.Case No.69/2016 is different from present one. The petition filed by OP No.4 on dtd.13.09.2017 is allowed, accordingly the complaint No.59/17 is not maintainable before this Forum as per our observation and subsequently the I.A.Case No.36/17, which arises out of the present C.C.Case is dropped as the original complaint is not maintainable.

                                                   Sd/-                           Sd/-                             Sd/-

                                               Member                  Member                        President