DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No. 84/6.5.2009 Decided on : 21.5.2009 Sri Guru Nanak Academy, Mansa Road, Jhunir, through Baljit Kaur wife of Sh. Gian Amrit Singh, Chairperson, Sri Guru Nanak Academy, Mansa Road Jhunir, through power of attorney Gian Amrit Singh. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.Punjab State Electricity Board, through Sub Divisional Officer, Jhunir, Tehsil and District Mansa. 2.Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala. 3.Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Mansa. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh. B.D. Jindal, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Quorum: Sh. Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President. Sh. Sarat Chander, Member. Smt. Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President. 1. The instant complaint, has been filed, by Sri Guru Nanak Academy, Mansa Road, Jhunir, through Mrs. Baljit Kaur wife of Sh. Gian Amrit Singh, Chairperson, as his attorney Sh. Gian Amrit Singh, under Section 12, of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short called the 'Act'), against the Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter called as the board), through its Sub Divisional Officer, Jhunir, Chairman and Assistant Executive Engineer, Mansa. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant, is as under:- 2. That Sh. Gian Amrit Singh, made an application, through his attorney and wife in the month of April, 2007, alongwith requisite documents, to opposite party No. 1, for issuance of electric connection, for Contd....2..... : 2 : running his academy. In that regard, office of opposite party No. 1, issued receipt No. 506 dated 15.6.2007, in the sum of Rs. 9500/-, out of the Receipt Book No. D.92905. The opposite parties issued, rough site plan, after holding inquiry and raised demand, of Rs. 34,612/-, for issuance of electric connection, but when complainant went, to deposit the said requisite amount, opposite parties, instead of accepting the amount, served notice vide his office Memo No. 817 dated 29.6.2007, in the name of academy, raising demand, of Rs. 83244/- on the allegations,, of theft of electric energy. The said notice, is illegal and has been served, by the officials of the board, under political pressure. It is liable to be set aside, because no theft of electric energy, has been committed, in the academy of the complainant and opposite parties, have failed to, disclose the name of the official, who conducted checking and details of evidence gathered at the time of checking. Moreover, the academy run by the complainant, was closed, because of summer vacations, as such, impugned notice is liable to be set aside and complainant, is entitled to seek compensation and costs of filing of complaint, from the opposite parties. He has also deposited, a sum of Rs. 41,622/-, with the board, in connection, with which Receipt No. 424, has been issued, on 24.7.2008, by the office of the opposite parties. The complainant filed, an appeal before Sub Divisional Magistrate on 27.3.2008, but vide order dated 25.8.2008, the same has been dismissed, as such, order of the said authority, is liable, to be set aside. Hence the complaint. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant, on the question of admission, of complaint and have gone through, the case file with his kind assistance. 4. Learned counsel, has been argued, that the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sardulgarh, has passed, the impugned order, dated 25.8.2008, dismissing the appeal of the complainant, on behalf of Disputes Settlement Committee constituted by the board, to deal with cases of theft of electric energy, as such complaint is maintainable, before the Consumer Forum. 5. We express our inability to accede to submissions, made by the Contd...3.... : 3 : learned counsel, for the complainant, because impugned order, has been passed, by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sardulgarh, in the capacity of Appellant Authority, as submitted in the complaint, itself and not as member of Disputes Settlement Committee, constituted by the board for dealing with cases of theft, of electric energy and for removal of grievances of consumers. In our opinion, after dismissal of the complaint, of the complainant by Appellate Authority, against the notice served, upon him, by the opposite parties, the proper remedy open to him, was to invoke provisions of Article 226 of Constitution of India and to file Writ Petition in the Hon'ble High Court. No doubt, as per Section 3, of the Act, remedy before the Consumer Fora, is an additional remedy, but once a Consumer, has availed remedy, under the Electricity Act, 2003 as per rules and regulations framed by the board, then he cannot entitled, to invoke, the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora, for redressal of his grievances. As such, we are of the considered opinion, that complaint in this Forum, in view of the order passed, by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sardulgarh in the capacity of Appellant Authority, is not maintainable. We are also of the view, that academy cannot be run, by the complainant alone, as running of such a educational institution, needs assistance, of qualified teachers. It is not the case of the complainant, that his academy, is a charitable institution. If so, then he must be earning handsome amount, in the shape of fees charged from the students and their parents as the complainant is running private academy, on commercial basis. As such, he is not 'Consumer' within the ambit of definition, given in Section 2(1)(ii) of the Act and is thus barred from invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum. 6. At this stage, learned counsel, for the complainant has submitted, that his client is running his academy, for earning his livelihood, as such he is 'Consumer', in terms of explanation, appended to Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. In support, to his contentions, the learned counsel, has placed reliance on 2005(1) CLT 273, Rajesh Kumar Yadav Versus Aggarwal Automobiles and another, wherein it has been held, Contd....4.. : 4 : complainant purchased Three Wheeler Delivery Van, from the opposite party and he specifically stated in his complaint, that the said vehicle has been purchased by him, in the year 1997, for earning his livelihood, on account of which, he was held, to be a 'Consumer' by Hon'ble Chhattisgarh State Commission, Raipur. 7. We respectfully, disagree with the counsel for the complainant, for the reasons stated in the earlier part of this order. Moreover, the complainant, has no where alleged, that he is running the academy for his self employment and earning his livelihood, as established in 2005(1) CLT 273, (Supra). Since the facts of the said authority, are distinguishable from the case in hand, as per which complainant was apparently, is running his academy, for commercial purposes, as such, he does not fall in the definition of 'Consumer', in terms of Section 2(1)(d)(ii), of the Act, which prescribes that commercial purpose, does not includes, availing of services by 'Consumer', exclusively for earning his livelihood, for self employment. Since the complainant, is also not proved, to be a Consumer, therefore, complaint, in this Consumer Forum is not maintainable. 8. In the light of our aforesaid discussion, we dismiss the complaint and direct the complainant, to seek appropriate remedy, open to him, if he, so desires or advised. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 21.5.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
