Per Hon’ble Mr. P. N. Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member
This is an appeal filed by the original Complainant, whose consumer complaint bearing No.208 of 2005 has been dismissed by the Additional Mumbai Suburban Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, vide an order dated 11/Aug/2010.
[2] Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:-
The Appellant herein – original Complainant; is the proprietor of a small scale industry and in the year 1986, he had taken an electricity connection from the erstwhile ‘Bombay Suburban Electricity Supply Company Limited’ (BSES), presently known as ‘Reliance Energy Limited’ for 50 HP Load. Till the month of June-2004, the Appellant had no complaint about electricity bills. Appellant used to get monthly bill in the range of `5,000/- to `20,000/- and the Appellant used to pay the same. However, according to the Appellant, in the month of July-2004, he received bill for an amount of `60,530/-. An explanation was sought from the Respondent herein – original Opponent, the electricity supply company but, the same was not furnished. On the other hand, the Respondent/Opponent electricity supply company issued to the Appellant herein, a notice under Section-56(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003; on 6/9/2004 and demanded arrears of `61,663/- and mentioned in that notice that in case, the amount was not deposited within a period of 15 days, the electricity supply to the Appellant’s premises would be discontinued. The Appellant/original Complainant again approached the Respondent/original Opponent but, his grievance was not answered properly. The Appellant/original Complainant denied to pay arrears of `61,663/-. According to Appellant/original Complainant, the Billing Demand No.134 is illegal & improper. It was the main grievance of the Appellant/original Complainant that the supply to his industry falls within the ambit of ‘LTP-1’ category and not under the ‘LTP-2’ category but, he has been issued a bill by applying tariff under the ‘LTP-2’ category, which is contrary to the directions issued by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC). The Appellant/original Complainant, therefore, pleaded that he has been wrongly categorized and issued inflated bill. The Appellant/original Complainant had approached MERC and brought to its notice that he could not be applied tariff under the ‘LTP-2’ category by Reliance Energy Limited. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC), ultimately directed the Reliance Energy Limited to rectify the bill and charge the Appellant/original Complainant @ `150/- per month, categorizing him as a ‘LTP-1’ consumer. Then, rectification was done in the bills for the months July-2004 to Oct-2004 but, thereafter again with effect from Nov-2004 to Dec-2004, the Respondent/ original Opponent issued a bill to the Appellant/original Complainant under the ‘LTP-2’ category. Again, the Appellant/original Complainant requested the Respondent/original Opponent to rectify the bill but, the Respondent/ original Opponent was not prepared to do so. Hence, the Appellant/ original Complainant filed a consumer complaint and pleaded that because of excessive bills given to him and threat of disconnection, he could not concentrate on his business properly and his business turnover has reduced from `39,00,000/- to `34,00,000/- and thus, he sustained loss of `5,00,000/-. He, therefore, demanded said amount and also requested that his billing should be in terms of tariff applicable to the ‘LTP-1’ category. He, therefore, filed a consumer complaint claiming these reliefs.
[3] The Respondent/original Opponent contested the consumer complaint by filing its written version and asserted that the Appellant/original Complainant cannot be styled as a ‘consumer’. The Appellant/original Complainant is using electricity for his industrial unit. He has been using electricity energy far in excess of 50 HP load permissible to him, and therefore, he has been issued bills as per directions issued by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission and as such, the Respondent/original Opponent was not guilty of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Respondent/original Opponent, therefore, pleaded that the consumer complaint may be dismissed with costs.
[4] On considering rival contentions and on perusal of the documents and affidavits filed by both the parties before it, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was pleased to dismiss the consumer complaint vide its order dated 11/Aug/2010. Being aggrieved by the said dismissal, Appellant/ original Complainant filed present appeal before the State Commission.
[5] We have heard the submissions of Mr. Ashutosh Marathe – Learned Counsel for the Appellant; and Mr. Uday Warunjikar – Learned Counsel for the Respondent.
[6] We have also perused the impugned order.
[7] We are finding that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum below has rightly concluded that the Appellant herein – original Complainant; cannot be treated as a ‘consumer’, within the meaning of Section-2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; because he has taken electricity connection from the Respondent herein – original Opponent; for ‘commercial purpose’, as he is doing his business there and his monthly turnover is to the extent of `34,00,000/-. So, the Appellant/original Complainant is running an industrial unit to earn profit and he is not running his industrial unit exclusively to earn his own livelihood, in which case, he could have been termed as a ‘consumer’ entitled to file a consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
[8] So far as this finding is concerned, we are in agreement with the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has rightly held that the Appellant/ original Complainant cannot be treated as a ‘consumer’, since he is engaged in a profit making activity or a commercial activity, and therefore, he cannot be styled as a ‘consumer’, within the meaning of Section-2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
[9] Secondly, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum below also rightly observed that dispute raised in this complaint by the Appellant/ original Complainant pertained to applicability of tariff. The tariff rates have been laid down by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC). In terms of MERC’s order the electricity supply companies are required to apply particular rates of tariff to a particular category of consumers. Now, whether the Appellant/original Complainant’s industrial unit falls within the ambit of ‘LTP-1’ category or ‘LTP-2’ category is a question to be decided by the Respondent/original Opponent in terms of orders issued by the MERC. If at all, there is any grievance to the Appellant/original Complainant, that grievance can best be resolved only by MERC under the Electricity Act, 2003; and not by this State Commission by entertaining a consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Applicability of one tariff in preference to another falls within the ambit of pricing policy and the Consumer Fora are not supposed to enter into that aspect of the matter. On this ground also, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum below, in our view, rightly dismissed the consumer complaint and directed the Appellant/original Complainant to approach MERC or any other statutory authority in that behalf.
[11] On the whole, we are finding that the order, as regards dismissal of the consumer complaint, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, appears to be just & appropriate and it is sustainable in law. We find no merits in the appeal preferred by the Appellant herein – original Complainant. Consequently, the same deserves to be dismissed.
Hence, we proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Pronounced on 15th June, 2011.
