Complainant through Adv. Dhamankar present 

Opponents present 

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--

Per : Mr. V. P. Utpat, President                      Place   :  PUNE

// J U D G M E N T //

(23/08/2013)

This complaint is filed by the consumer against Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited for deficiency in service.  The brief facts are as follows,

1]       The complainant is a consumer of opponent.  She has received bill of electricity dtd. 6/2/2008 for the period of 30/12/2007 to 30/01/2008 for the sum of Rs. 41,440/-.  The due date of payment was 26/2/2008.  According to the complainant, the average monthly bill of the electricity is around Rs. 900/-.  The bill in dispute includes sum of Rs. 40,453.50 against heading of “adjusted amount”.   No details have been provided.  On 16/2/2008, the employee of the opponent had visited the premises of the complainant for disconnection of the electricity supply.  The complainant informed him that she is regularly paying bills and the due date of the payment of bill is 26/2/2008 and there were no arrears or due as claimed by the opponent.  It is the case of the complainant that the opponent had issued incorrect bill; that amounts to deficiency in service.  The complainant has prayed for declaration that the bill dtd. 6/2/2008 of Rs. 41,440/- be declared as illegal and set aside and it may be declared that the complainant is not liable to pay amount.  The opponent may be restrained from recovering the bill in question.  The complainant has asked cost of the proceeding.

2]      The opponent resisted the complaint by filing written version, in which it has denied the contents of the complaint.  It is specifically denied that the opponent has caused deficiency in service.  According to the opponent, the complainant is using the electricity connection for non-domestic purpose; hence she is not a ‘consumer’.  It is further denied that average bill per month is Rs. 900/- only.  According to the opponent, the said bill was provisional bill and the complainant has remedy to challenge the said bill before proper authority.  The complainant is running office of Chartered Architect in the said premises and the electricity is not used for residential purpose.  The opponent has prayed that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ and hence this complaint is not maintainable.  It has further prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

3]      After scrutinizing the documentary evidence, which is produced before this Forum, hearing the arguments of both the counsels and considering pleadings, the following points arise for my determination. The points, findings and the reasons thereon are as follows-

REASONS :-

4]      Initially this complaint was decided by this Forum on 25/2/2009 and the complaint was dismissed on the ground that the complainant has not availed remedy, which is provided under section 126(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003.  That judgment was challenged by the complainant before Hon’ble State Commission by preferring First Appeal No. 570/2009.  The said appeal was decided on 22/01/2010 and Hon’ble State Commission has remanded the matter by allowing appeal.  It is directed to conduct the de novo enquiry and settle the dispute according to law.  It has been observed by the State Commission while remanding matter that, there are two parallel remedies available, the consumer can avail any of the remedy, either to prefer appeal before competent authority against disputed provisional bill or to file complaint before Consumer Forum.  It is the case of the complainant that, even though the average bill of the said connection is Rs. 900/-, the opponent has issued bill of Rs. 41,400/-, which is illegal and bound to be set aside.  It is the case of the opponent that the complainant is not a consumer, as she is using the electricity supply for non-residential purpose, i.e. for commercial purpose.  Hence, she has no right to get any relief from the Consumer Forum. The complainant has argued that there is distinction between ‘commercial purpose’ and ‘professional purpose’ and office of Chartered Architect can not be treated as commercial activity.  In that context, she has placed reliance on the Ruling 2006 (5) Bom C R 511 in between “Municipal Corporation of city of Pune V/S Bhagwan Ganesh Sabne” and that ruling is related with the assessment made by Municipal Council for commercial purpose and the premises was used by the C.A.  In that ruling, it has been observed that C.A. is a profession and it is not a business and in that context it has been observed that the said premises is not used as commercial purpose for commercial activity. 

5]      It reveals from the relief claimed by the complainant that the complainant has sought declaration that the bill in question is void ab-initio and illegal and it should be declared as void and the opponent be restrained from recovering amount which has been shown in the bill.  It is significant to note that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is complete Code and as per procedure of this Act, the District Forum is authorized to give finding on issues as regards deficiency in service and defects in goods.  Section 14 of the said Act is provided that the Forum can direct the opponent to remove defect, replace the goods, to return price or to pay compensation for deficiency in service.  This Forum has no right to give relief of declaration and injunction.  These reliefs are relating with the civil rights and only Civil Court has right to adjudicate the issues as regards the declaration and injunction.  In my opinion, this complaint can not be entertained by the Consumer Forum in the light of section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Hence, I answer the points accordingly and pass the following order.

**  ORDER **

1.                 Complaint stands dismissed.  In the

peculiar circumstances there is no

order as to the costs.

2.                 Copies of this order be furnished to

the parties free of cost.