MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.       This is an appeal filed by the complainant, received on transfer from Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, against order dated 23.5.2002 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No. 74-DF-2002.

2.       Brief facts of the case are that an electric connection bearing No.MT 45/0993 was installed at the premises of the complainant, which was domestic connection with sanctioned load of 5 KW.  In August, 1999, the Daughter-in-Law of the complainant started a Beauty Parlour in the above said premises. On 7.9.1999 the OP No.2 converted the domestic connection in NRS (Non Resident Supply) connection on the plea that portion of the house was being used for running Beauty Parlour. It was submitted by the complainant that only a portion of the house was being used for running beauty parlour but OP No.2 was charging from the complainant for the whole of the electricity consumed through the said connection both for the house and for the beauty parlour. The Flying Squad checked the connection on 10.7.2000 installed at the premises of the complainant but no defect was found. On 9.2.2001 the meter was removed from the premises of the complainant for checking in the ME Lab. The meter was finally checked on 30.8.2001 in the absence of the complainant and thereafter the OP No.2 raised a bill of Rs.19,178/- alleging theft on the above said meter. On the basis of checking of Flying Squad on 10.7.2000, the load of the connection was enhanced to 11 KW and the complainant was asked to deposit the charges. The complainant again protested the raising of demand of Rs.19,178/- on the false and frivolous allegations of theft. The complainant received bill dated 27.11.2001 which included Rs.19,178/- as arrears and the said bill was payable by cheque upto 12.12.2001 and the period of payment had been extended further if paid with surcharge of Rs.2374/-. On 13.12.2001, an electric connection of the complainant was disconnected due to non-payment of the bill. The complainant contacted OP No.2 for restore the electric connection but OP No.2 refused to restore the electric connection unless the amount of the bill be deposited. The complainant deposited the bill with the OPs together with reconnection charges and thereafter the electric connection was restored. The above said act of OPs had caused the complainant a lot of mental tension, agony, inconvenience, harassment as well as financial loss and loss in reputation. Hence, the complaint was filed.

3.       Reply was filed by the OPs and stated that the complainant was running a Beauty Parlour-cum-Saloon in the name and style of M/s Scissors Hair Design and Beauty Studio with all kinds of modern machines and also employees were working in the saloon. The complainant deposited the charges and security of NRS connection willingly an about 2 ½ years ago. The meter was checked in the ME Lab on 30.8.2002 and representative of the complainant Sh.Navtej Kanwar, Advocate had given a consent letter dated 10.7.2000 stating therein that the meter may be checked in the ME Lab in his absence and the result of the ME Lab would be acceptable to them. During the checking of the meter in the ME Lab, it was found that there was gap between the meter clamp and glass and the glass of the meter was found tempered with, the rubber packing fitted between the glass and clamp had been found removed and on opening of the meter, portion of the rubber was found in the meter, scratches were visible on the meter counter place and also on the digits of the meter.  Due to the report of ME Lab, a case of theft was found and a notice dated 27.9.2001 was sent to the complainant asking her to deposit a penalty of Rs.19,278/- but the complainant failed to deposit the above said amount and a notice dated 4.12.2001 was again issued to the complainant asking her to deposit the amount within two days but the complainant again failed to deposit the amount. Due to non-payment of the above said amount, the OPs were disconnected the electric connection installed at the premises of the complainant. It was pleaded by the OPs that they were acted within the rules and regulations prescribed by the Board and as such there was no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissed of the complaint with costs.

4.       The parties led their evidence in support of their contentions.

5.       The learned District Forum dismissed the complaint with no order as to costs.

6.          Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Forum, the present appeal has been filed by the complainant. Ms.Deepali Puri, Advocate has appeared on behalf of appellant and none has appeared on behalf of respondents.

7.       In appeal, it is submitted by the appellant/complainant that the learned District Forum has not decided the issue raised by the appellant/complainant with regard to increase of load from 5 KW to 11 KW and charging of NRS Tariff on a load of 11 KW considering that the whole connection is used for NRS purpose against a portion which is used as beauty parlour. The learned District Forum has held that the OP had committed deficiency in service in disconnecting the connection installed in the premises of the complainant before the period allowed as per the bill yet has erred in not awarding any compensation. The learned District Forum has failed to appreciate the fact that by running a modern beauty parlour with modern machinery in a part of residential premises does not imply that MRS tariff shall be applicable. The learned District Forum has gravely erred in holding that the checking of the meter in ME Lab without the presence of the consumer is not deficiency in service in view of the consent letter.  The Forum has not considered the fact that no consent letter was given by the complainant but by her son who is neither the consumer nor the complainant and any consent given by him is meaningless and not valid in the eyes of law.  Hence, it is prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed and the order passed by the learned District Forum may kindly be set aside.

8.         We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9.         It has been observed by us that an electric connection with domestic tariff was installed at the premises of the appellant/complainant with a sanctioned load of 5 KW.  In August, 1999, the daughter-in-law of the appellant started a beauty parlour in a portion of the said premises. On 7.9.1999 the OP No.2 converted the said domestic connection into NRS (Non Resident Supply) Tariff on the plea that the portion of the house was being used for running the beauty parlour. On 10.7.2000, the flying squad checked the said electric meter and ordered for the removal of the electric meter for testing it in the ME Lab. On the basis of the checking done by the flying squad on 10.72007 the OPs enhanced the load of the said premises from 5 KW to 11 KW with a direction to deposit the charges for the enhancement of the load. On 27.11.2001, the complainant received a bill for a sum of Rs.19,178/- as arrear which was payable upto 12.12.2001. Inspite of this, the complainant failed to deposit the amount and for the non-payment of the said bill, the OP disconnected the connection on 13.12.2001. Even on the request of the complainant, the OPs refused to restore the electric supply unless the amount of the bill was deposited along with the reconnection charges. The complainant deposited the said amount and thereafter connection was restored by the OPs. For this act of OPs, the complainant has filed the complaint. The complaint was dismissed by the learned District Forum.

10.       The first point for consideration before us is whether the OPs have rightly converted the domestic supply tariff to NRS Tariff as per the Sales Circular CC No.8/98. A perusal of the sales circular along with the instruction No. 87 reveals that whenever a portion of the dwellings in which space is occasionally used for the conduct of business by a person residing therein is also covered under the tariff the consumption in that part of portion will be separately metered under the appropriate tariff, if separate connection is not provided the entire supply will be classified under non-residential supply. There is exception to this general rule i.e. in case a room or a part of residential house is utilized for beauty parlour run by house lady, then it shall be covered under the domestic supply tariff. The learned District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that as there is no rebuttal to the allegation leveled by an Engineer Sh.R.K.Bhagat in the form of an affidavit that the complainant was carrying on a modern beauty parlour and saloon with modern machinery and also engaged employees to run the said beauty parlour. Hence, the complainant is not covered under the exception to the general clause granted to the beauty parlour run by the house lady in a portion of the house. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, the lerned District Forum dismissed the complaint. In our view the learned District Forum has wrongly dismissed the complaint and has failed to appreciate the fact merely running a modern beauty parlour with modern machinery in a part of the residential premises does not imply that NRS Tariff shall be applicable. Moreover the learned District Forum has also failed to notice that there is no further classification to the beauty parlour in house it may have old machinery or new machinery. Nowhere it has been specifically mentioned in the sales circular that the NRS Tariff will be charged if the beauty parlour is installed with a new and modern machinery. Moreover, there is nothing on record to prove that the owner of the beauty parlour is not running it for her livelihood. It is a settled law that the owner of the beauty parlour can employee the person for her. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned District Forum has erred in observing that the OPs have rightly charged the NRS Tariff from the complainant. On the contrary, we are of the view that the OPs are not entitled to charge NRS Tariff rather to charge on the domestic tariff as per the Sales Circular CC No.8/98.  It is pertinent to mention here that the OPs have rightly enhanced the load from 5 KW to 11 KW as observed by the flying squad on the spot.

11.       The second point for consideration before us is whether a proper procedure was adopted by the OP for sending the meter to the ME Lab and whether the allegation made for theft of energy was proved against the complainant. In our opinion, the allegation of theft has been rightly proved on file beyond any doubt and the OPs have rightly charged the penalty for theft of electricity. Moreover a proper and fair procedure was adopted by the OP which has been rightly observed by the learned District Forum. We find no error in it and no interference is called for.

12.       The third point for consideration before us is whether the OPs have disconnected the electric connection illegally. It is apparent from the record that due to the non-payment of bill by the complainant, the OPs have disconnected the electricity connection. Hence, the OPs are not deficient. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned District Forum regarding the disconnection of the electricity.

13.       In view of the foregoing discussion, the order passed by the learned District Forum is modified to the extent that the OPs should charge domestic supply tariff instead of NRS Tariff as there is exception to the general clause by which the complainant’s case is fully covered. With these facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the OPs to charge the electricity charges from the complainant at the domestic supply tariff from 7.9.1999 (the date from which NRS Tariff was charged from the complainant) till the date sales circular No. 8/98 is in force. Therefore we direct the OP either to overhaul the account of the complainant and if any excess amount has been charged by the OPs then either to refund the same, if any due or the same should be adjusted in future bills in equal six installments. Rest of the order passed by the learned District Forum is upheld. In this view of the matter, we partly allow the appeal with no order as to costs.  We further direct the OPs to comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, otherwise the complainant is at a liberty to initiate the proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

14.            Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.