DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.04/09.01.2008 Decided on : 12.08.2008 Munish Kumar S/o Sh. Roshan Lal S/o Sh.Siri Ram, resident of Tailor Street, Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.The Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, City, Mansa. 2.The Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, District Mansa. 3.The Secretary, Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala. 4.The Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.R.S.Sodhi, counsel for the complainant. Sh.K.C. Garg, counsel for the opposite parties. Before: Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER: Instant one is the complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act'). It has been preferred by the complainant seeking a direction from the Forum to the opposite parties to cancel the bills issued to him on average basis, charge him on the basis of the readings of the meters of the electricity connections and accordingly issue the bills ; pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation besides cost of the complaint. 2) Briefly put the case of the complainant is that he is holder of Contd........2 : 2 : two connections bearing Account Nos. NK51/1069 and NK51/1070 which have been obtained by him from the opposite parties for running the brick kiln in the area of Nangal Kalan for the purpose of earning his livelihood and the livelihood of his family members. Nothing is outstanding towards him. Work of the brick kiln is seasonal due to which labour employed there leaves the site. It is further added by him that no employee of the Electricity Board came to the brick kiln for taking the reading prior to 18.11.2007. Bills of both the connections have issued on 18.7.2007 (infact 18.11.2007) for Rs.2,420/- for connection No.NK51/1069 and Rs.26,610/- for connection No.NK51/1070 on average basis although no reading was recorded. Meters of both the connections are in order and correctly recording the energy. On 12.12.2007, reading of the meter for connection No.NK51/1069 was 2556 whereas of connection No.NK51/1070 was 12867. An application was also moved to the OP for checking the connections, but to no effect. Bills on average basis have been issued in order to harass him and he is not bound to pay them. In these circumstances, he alleges deficiency in service and mental agony as well. 3) On being put to notice, the opposite parties filed their version taking the legal objections that complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint; connections have been obtained for commercial purpose; complainant has employed 250 workers at the brick kiln and, as such, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint; complaint is not maintainable and has been filed to harass them. 4) On merits, their plea is that bills have been correctly issued on average basis. The complainant would suffer no loss as the amount taken on the basis of average has to be adjusted. They deny the remaining averments. 5) In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Munish Kumar, complainant has tendered in its evidence his own affidavit (Ex.C-1), Legal Notice (Ex.C-2), Postal receipts (Ex.C-3 to C-6), Request Contd........3 : 3 : of the complainant to the OP (Ex.C-7), Bills (Ex.C-8 to C-13), Acknowledgement Receipts (Ex.C-14 to C-17) and another Bills (Ex.C-18 and C-19) 6) In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties, only one affidavit of Sh.Ashok Kumar, SDO has been tendered in evidence. 7) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Apart from this, we have gone through the evidence. 8) One of the legal objections taken by the opposite parties is that the complainant is not a consumer and, as such, this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint. Mr.Sodhi, learned counsel for the complainant argued that no doubt electric connections have been obtained by the complainant for the purpose of running the brick kiln, yet the work is being done by him for the purpose of earning his livelihood and the livelihood of his family members. 9) We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submission of the learned counsel for the complainant. Before touching the merits of the case, we deem it fit to adjudicate as to whether complainant is the consumer or not. No doubt in the explanation under Section 2(1)(d) of the 'Act', if services are availed for the purpose of earning livelihood by way of self employment then a person remains the consumer, even if he has availed the services for commercial purpose. Matter as to whether services have been availed for the purpose of earning livelihood is a question of fact which has to be determined keeping in view the relevant facts and circumstances of each and every case. As per explanation under Section 2(1)(d), consumer should establish that he has availed the service for the purpose of earning livelihood and that too by way of self employment. In this case, it is not the case of the complainant that he is running the brick kiln alone or by availing the service of only a few persons. The matter in controversy stands amply rebutted with the affidavit of Sh. Ashok Kumar, S.D.O.,PSEB in which he has stated in so many words that he has Contd........4 : 4 : employed 250 workers for running the brick kiln. May be that, the work of the brick kiln is seasonal, but this does not make the complainant a consumer. Even otherwise, it is worthwhile to mention that brick kiln is run for the purpose of earning profit. It is run not at a small scale. The Learned counsel for the complainant has cited authority 1995(2) CPJ 2(SC) from Consumer Protection Cases Digest. Complete authority has not been produced due to which its factual position and as to what has been held on merits is not clear. To the contrary, their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in Cheema Engineering Services vs Rajan Singh, 1997(1)CPC 231 )SC) that a plea has been taken that the machine is for commercial purpose for the purpose of earning livelihood by way of employment, is a matter of evidence. If this aspect of the matter is considered even then detailed evidence has to be taken. 10) On the basis of what has been discussed above, we are of the considered view that complainant is not a consumer and, as such, this complaint before this Forum is not maintainable. Accordingly it is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 11) Before parting with this order it is made clear that complainant is at liberty to get his grievance redressed from the Civil Court or any other competent authority, if so advised and permitted by law. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charges and file be consigned to record. Pronounced: 12.08.2008 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, Lakhbir Singh, Member. Member. President.
