BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 628 of 2015
Date of Institution: 16.10.2015
Date of Decision: 10.06.2016
Hazara Singh son of Wadhawa Singh, resident of 55, Sareen Hospital Wali Gali, Sandhu Avenue, Batala Road, Amritsar.
Complainant
Versus
- Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala.
- Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through Assistant Executive Engineer, Easter Commercial Sub Division, Batala Road, Amritsar.
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Navpreet Pahwa, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties: Sh. Anil Sharma, Advocate
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Sh.Hazara Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that he is one of the owners in possession of property comprising shed double storied and an office having load of electricity connection installed in the said property, situated at Batala Road, Amritsar vide sale deed dated 4.11.2003. The complainant vide above said sale deed dated 4.11.2003 stepped into the shoes of the previous owner and became consumer and beneficiary of said electricity connection bearing account No.421SP620228N (SP62/228), meter No. 3401 since 4.11.2003 and paying electricity bills as per consumption regularly to Opposite Parties. The complainant is an old man hence opted to let out said premises and has only source of income by way of rent/ license fees from the said property for running his livelihood. The complainant inducted M/s.Hazi Embroidery as licensee in the said premises vide license deed dated 12.4.2013, who vacated the said premises and stopped running the machinery installed in the said premises on 30.8.2014. Thereafter, no consumption of electricity took place between the period 30.8.2014 as the said premises was lying vacant. However, the complainant continued to pay the electricity bills regularly s per consumption vide electricity bills dated 17.9.2014, 17.10.2014 and 15.11.2014. Thereafter, the complainant inducted Nitish Ghai @ Rinku and Sahil Seth as joint licensee in the said premises vide license deed dated 22.12.2014. Opposite Party No.2 without any reasonable cause and defect in electricity meter and without making any inquiry sent to the complainant a supplementary bill bearing memo No. 707 (10.8.2015) raising arbitrary and illegal demand without any proper and valid basis requiring the complainant to pay additional amount of Rs.66,613/- alleging to be average charges within 15 days. On receipt of the said memo/ supplementary electricity bill, the complainant went to the office of Opposite Party No.2 twice and brought to his notice the above facts, but Opposite Party No.2 refused to accept the version of the complainant and asked the complainant to pay the said amount within 15 days, otherwise electricity connection would be disconnected. Opposite Parties demanded the said amount illegally, arbitrarily and without any basis and jurisdiction as the electricity meter is working in proper condition and has been shown as OK code in the electricity bills. The complainant has sought for the following reliefs vide instant complaint.
a) The amount of Rs.66,613/- raised illegally by the Opposite Parties vide supplementary bill dated 10.8.2015 may be quashed.
b) The complainant may be awarded compensation for unnecessary harassment ad inconvenience.
c) The cost of complaint may also be granted.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, Opposite Parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is not maintainable against the Opposite Party as the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint as SP connection has been installed for industrial purposes. On merits, it is submitted that the audit party of the Opposite Parties during routine checking found that the electricity meter of the complainant was burnt. The same was removed from the premises of the complainant vide MCO No. 64/79920 dated 17.12.2014 which was effected on 19.12.2014. The meter of the complainant was brought in ME Lab vide Challan No. 11 dated 5.2.2015 and the meter of the complainant was found burnt. The audit party noted that from the month of 09/2014 to 11/2014 the meter of the complainant was burnt, but due to the mistake of the meter reader, the bills of OK code were issued to the complainant, but according to rules and regulations of the PSPCL, the average bills should have been issued to the complainant on the basis of corresponding years. So, the audit party of the Opposite Parties overhauled the account of the complainant on the basis of corresponding years. After that a detailed notice vide memo No. 707 dated 10.8.2015 for Rs.66,613/- was issued to the complainant according to the rules and regulations of the PSPCL. There is no force in the complaint and the complaint may be dismissed accordingly.
3. In his bid to prove the case, complainant tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW-1/A, affidavit of Rajat Mahajan Ex.CW-2/A in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copy of sale deed Ex.C1, copies of license deeds Ex.C2 and Ex.C3, copies of bills Ex.C4 to Ex.C8, copy of memo Ex.C9 and affidavit of Nitin Ghai Ex.C10 and closed the evidence.
4. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Parties tendered affidavit of Ashwani Kumar, SDO Ex.OP1, copy of consent letter Ex.OP2, copy of consumption data Ex.OP3, copy of ME Lab report Ex.OP4, copy of notice dated 10.8.2015 Ex.OP5, copy of MCO Ex.OP6, copy of half margin Ex.OP7 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for both the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
6. From the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the complainant is not proved to be a consumer as required under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The electricity connection in dispute is installed in the name of M/s.Surindera Tex, Batala Road, Amritsar. The complainant is stated to have purchased the demise premises as one of the co-sharers vide sale deed dated 4.11.2003, copy whereof is Ex.C1 on record. But however, the electricity meter in dispute has not been mutated in the name of the complainant from the previous owner. In such a situation, the complainant can not be said to be a consumer under the Opposite Parties Our observation on this point has been made from Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. Revisionist Versus Ashish Kumar Respondent in Revision Petition No. 01 of 2013 decided on 22.3.2013 of the Hon’ble Uttarakhand State Commission, Dehradun wherein it has been held that:-
“Electricity connection is in the name of father of complainant and he has not got the connection transferred in his own came, complaint filed and held that there being no privity of contract between the consumer and the service provider, the complainant is not a consumer of the revisionist.”
Moreover, the electric connection in this case is SP connection, which is given for industrial purpose only and the same is commercial in nature. It is the case of the complainant that he has given the electric connection in dispute on lease for earning his livelihood. But he has failed to give the details of the lessee nor the lease deed in question has saw the light of the day in the court. From the perusal of the lease deed, it could have been found as to whether the connection was leased out for earning the livelihood or that the complainant was running the factory through other person for earning profit. As per definition of ‘consumer’ given in section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, the commercial activity is excluded from the domain of consumer for the purpose of Consumer Protection Act. The bald allegations of the complainant that he has leased the connection for earning livelihood, is not sufficient to prove that the connection in dispute was being used for earning the livelihood . Moreover , the allegations of the complainant have also been rebutted by the opposite party vide their affidavit which is Ex.OP1 on record and in such a situation the stand of the opposite party that the connection in dispute is a commercial one, shall have to be accepted. Our observation on this point stands fortified from Ishwar Singh Vs Dakshin Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, II (2011) CPJ-18 (NC) wherein it has been held that:-
“The electric connection is admittedly for Atta Chakki but the dispute is whether it is a domestic connection or commercial connection. The opposite party has denied that it was domestic connection. The opposite party has denied that it was domestic connection. Complainant has not produced any material before us to show that it was a domestic connection. Apparently Atta Chakki even though installed in the house would be for commercial purpose and nowhere it has been pleaded that the Atta Chakki was being used for own use of the complainant or that the Atta Chakki was meant for his livelihood. No material has been produced before us by the complainant so as to come to the conclusion that the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 , as much services for commercial purpose are excluded thereunder. Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to go into such issues.”
Since the complainant has not been proved to be a consumer and the electricity connection in dispute being commercial in nature, the complaint filed by the complainant for challenging the supplementary bill vide memo No. 707 dated 10.8.2015 for an amount of Rs.66,613/-, copy whereof is Ex.C9 is not challengeable by the complainant before this Forum. The remedy lay in filing the proceedings before the Civil Courts, and as such the instant complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated: 10.06.2016. (S.S.Panesar) President
(Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)
Member Member
hrg
