(Delivered on 03/10/2017)

Per Mr. S.B. Sawarkar, Hon’ble Member

1.      The instant appeal is filed against the order of the District Forum, Bhandara passed in  consumer complaint No. 14/2005 dated 10/01/2006 partly granting the complaint and directing the Opposite party (in short O.P.) to cancel the  additional  bill amount  taken from the complainant  till January-2004 with  interest  and  the fine recovered  upon it.  Further directed to return the amount in the span of  30 days  from the date of the order or  to appropriate  it in the  electricity bill of the complainant and to file its report  in the Forum.  Further  directed  the O.P.  to provide Rs. 500/- for physical and mental  harassment and Rs. 500 /- as cost of the complaint to the complainant.

2.      The complainant filed a  complaint that he has a rice mill to earn his livelihood. He got  an electric connection with 65 H.P. (Horse Power) from the  O.P.  and has been  regularly  paying  the bill.  However,  from January-2004 the O.P.  claimed  the  voltage  to be of 72 H.P.  and  started giving him  the bill  at the rate of 72 H.P.  claiming  fine  of Rs. 840/-. The inspection team  (I.T.) of O.P.  inspected  his  rice mill in  December-2003 and  showing the  capacity  of 72 H.P. took his signature on the report.  When the complainant  requested for the report  it was not given to him. He claimed that  the O.P.  is not  claiming  the additional  cost  for  extra  7 H.P. but  is asking   the bill at the rate of 72 H.P.  at the rate of  Rs. 60/- H.P..

3.      The complainant claimed that  the  O.P.No. 2  regularly  visits his rice mill and keeps the record  of the meter reading  by making  entry in the notebook which shows that the complainant has never used  the electricity beyond  65 H.P.  capacity.  Therefore, the complainant  repeatedly  made requests  and finally  gave notice on 22/06/2004. However, the O.P.  did not pay any  heed . Hence, he filed a complaint claiming deficiency in service with a prayer  to provide him the copy of  the  inspection report  and  direct the  O.P. to inspect  the meter and the access load according to   the actual consumption  and issue fresh bills according to the actual load.  Further  direct the O.P. to refund  the extra amount and penalty  collected  for the  extra  shown 7 H.P. with arrears  from December-2003 and to grant him  a compensation of Rs.5,000/- for  physical and mental harassment  with  a cost of complaint.

 4.     On notice,  the O.P.  Nos. 1&2 appeared  and  countered the complaint  claiming it  to be beyond  the jurisdiction of  the Consumer Forum being  a commercial connection. The O.Ps. further claimed that  the complainant  violated  section 16 and  section 31 (F)-ii of Electricity Act as per the report  of I.T.  and hence,  the complaint deserves dismissal.

5.      Both  parties filed their evidence. The advocate for the complainant  claimed  that  the mill  is for  livelihood  and he has never used  more than  the  permissible  H.P. voltage.  Hence,  he is put to loss of Rs. 3400/- because of false report of the inspection team.

6.      The learned Forum heard both the parties and held that  the connection  is not for the commercial  purpose and hence is admissible.  The learned Forum held that   as per the  entry in the notebook of the complainant his  voltage  capacity  has never been beyond  65 H.P. The entries are  signed by the officer of the O.Ps. The learned Forum held that the O.Ps. did not file affidavit in support of  inspection report and no other evidence other than the inspection report to show that the complainant was using  electricity  at  higher pressure. Also the O.Ps. did not provide him  the copy of the inspection  report. Therefore, the learned Forum  held that the  complainant has not breached  the  sections of the Electricity Act. Also  the  Civil Suit filed by the complainant  is  not  related to the present  complaint.  Hence,  holding the  deficiency  service  proved passed the order as above.

7.      Aggrieved against the order the original  O.Ps. filed the appeal through advocate Shri Quazi hence, are referred as appellants. The original  complainant  is referred as  respondent  and was  represented by advocate Smt. A.Rohilla. Both parties filed written notes of arguments.

8.      The advocate for the appellant relied on the following judgments.

i.        The Supreme Court Order passed in Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity  Supply Company of Orissa Limited Vs.  Shri Sitaram Rice Mill published at (2012) 2  Supreme Court Cases 108. Wherein  the Hon’ble Apex Court held that  unauthorized  use under section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 covers consumption in excess  of contracted  load. Such consumption particularly when involving change of category and tariff  does fall  under  section 126 explained  (b) (iv) of 2003.

ii.       National Commission Judgment  passed in  Chandrakant Dhabale Vs.  M.G.V.C.L. Baroda published at IV (2015) CPJ 368 (NC). Wherein  the National Commission held that  the consumer  running a system  for supplying  water to industrial sheds is a commercial purpose though the society  is a person,  it is not  consumer since bill was issued and complaint was filed  after amendment of section 2(1) (d) of Act which excludes from ambit of  expression of consumer  a person  hiring  or availing  service for a  commercial purpose.

iii.      Maharashtra Consumer Commission Order passed in Dream  Works Entertainment and Software Ltd. Vs.  B.S.E.S. Ltd.  published at I (2005) CPJ 16. Wherein  it is held  that  complainant  a corporate  entity  registered under Company Act hired services from electricity board is  not consumer  as per the  amended  C.P. Act.  Dispute is not  maintainable  before the Consumer Fora, complaint is dismissed.

iv.      Maharashtra Consumer Commission order passed in  Pramod Laxman  Zinge Vs.  Maharashtra State Electricity Board published at  IV (2004) CPJ 490. Where it is held that  the complainant running  hotel  alleged  exorbitant electricity bill raised  in respect of  consumption of power supply to  hotel is a  Commercial entity   who hires services  from electricity board hence,  excluded  from definition of  consumer as per  recent  amendment.  Complainant  not  consumer.

v.       Chandigarh Consumer Commission order passed in  Eon InfoTech Ltd.  Vs.  Sub Divisional  Officer, Electricity Department published at III(2004) CPJ 359. Wherein  it is held that  complainant  limited  company engaged  in business of information  technology  and  electricity  consumed  in connection with  running of business  then  commercial purpose  involved. The complainant is not  consumer. Complaint  is rightly dismissed.

vi.      Andhra Pradesh Consumer Commission order passed in  Shree Manufacturing  Company Ltd.  Vs.  A.P. State  Electricity Board, published at II (1993) CPJ 874. Wherein it is   held that  complainant  running a factory  & the  complaint is against  frequent  break down. Factory  was   consuming  electric energy for  manufacturing  yarn and hence, complainant  cannot  claim relief under the Act  answer.

9.      The advocate for the appellant harped on the point that  the inspection  report  conducted on  22/12/2003 shows that  the various  instruments  connected to the grid showed  that the connected load  is of 72 H.P.  He further  submitted that  the  respondent  runs a  rice mill  which is  industrial  unit and hence as per the amended Act he cannot be  categorized as consumer. In the light of  the various  judgments cited by him, he therefore requested  that the learned Forum could not appreciate the connected loan drawn by the respondent and passed a erroneous  order which  deserves to be  set aside.  He submitted that  the ground of commercial activity  is also raised  by appellant  before  the  learned Forum.

10.    The advocate  for the respondent submitted that  the  appellant has been charging extra amount from him arbitrarily whereas  the appellant’s officer have been recording the consumption of the  respondent which has never been above 65 H.P. loan . Also the  respondent  is running the mill for maintaining his livelihood and therefore, he is a  consumer  in the light of the  Consumer Protection  Act as  it is  not a commercial activity. The learned Forum therefore has rightly held the deficiency  in service and has passed the order which deserves to be confirmed. Hence, it be confirmed.

11.    We considered the contentions of both the parties.  The appellant  has raised  a ground that  the respondent  was given  industrial connection  and  the consumption of electricity  was for the commercial purpose. Hence, the complaint itself  was  beyond  the  jurisdiction of the  learned Forum. We also find that  the respondent  was using  65 H.P. connection  which shows that  it was for the industrial purpose  and  cannot be called for maintaining  personal livelihood  of the respondent.

12.    We further find that  the inspection report  filed by the appellant  shows that  it has a signature  of the representative of the respondent  and  it has a connected load of 72 H.P.  The inspection report is drawn by the flying squad  from Yavatmal( another  district) in their search  for irregularity  which is  properly  communicated  to the  District Officer to recover the excess  energy cost.  The section  31 (f) of the  the conditions of supply stipulate that “In case that actual connected load is found to be exceeding the sanctioned  load, the consumer shall be billed  on the basis of  actual connected load  and  shall be levied  penal charges for the  unauthorized  connected load  at the applicable  rate of  minimum charges per horse power per month.”

13.    It shows that  the appellant  has billed according to the direction issued by the flying squad  which  detected  the irregularity and  appropriate direction were issued. Hence,  when  the irregularity  came to the notice its correction  and proper  recovery of charges  by the appellant  cannot be called as  deficiency  in service.

14.    The learned Forum committed  mistake in holding that  the additional evidence needs to have been  given  for the  inspection report. When   on due inspection, properly drawn a report  with proper  signature  of the competent  officers along with  proper  forwarding  of  letter from the  office, is on record  it   needs to be  accepted as  believable  evidence.  The inspection report itself is drawn after detection of irregularity. Hence, it needs to be believed.

15.    We therefore, see that  the learned Forum erred  in holding  the industrial connection to be  the  house hold connection.  Thereby  holding the respondent  to be  a consumer and also  committed mistake in not accepting the value of inspection report recorded by  a competent  squad. Hence, the order  deserves to be set aside.  Hence, the order below.

ORDER

i.        The appeal is allowed.

ii.       The order of the learned Forum is set aside. In the event  the  complaint  stands dismissed.

iii.      Parties to bear their own costs.

iv.      Copy of  the order be provided to both  the parties, free of cost.