Quorum:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President.
Sh.Mohinder Singh Brar, Member.
Smt.Aparana Kundi, Member.
Order by
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that he is running a business/ Rice Sheller under the name and style M/s.Vijay K Gupta and Co. and having industrial connection bearing Account No.3002964822 and is paying the consumption charges regularly and is running its business for the purpose of his livelihood. Further alleges that in the year 2016, the electricity meter of the complainant was changed as it was running fast. On the application of the complainant, the SDO concerned made checking No.92/210 and fund that the meter was running fast. Regarding this, Assistant Engineer of Opposite Parties also admitted that the bill of 03/16 to 09/16 was made on the basis of more units where the bill should be made on the basis of bill of 03/15 to 09/15 and as such, he agreed to pay refund of excess amount of Rs.3,38,064/-, Rs.15,624/- and Rs.18,786/- out of which the Opposite Parties paid/ refunded the amount of Rs.3,38,064/- in the bill 05/17 and the remaining amount due towards Opposite Parties. After adjustment an amount of Rs.41,817/- was to be paid by the Opposite Parties to the complainant. It is pertinent to mention over here that in the same bill i.e.06/17 the Opposite Parties has also charged Rs.250/- as surcharge and as such, the complainant is liable to get refund of Rs.5056/-. Further balance refund of Rs.15,624/- and Rs.18,786/- + Rs.1300/- as security charged deposited by the complainant on 20.11.2016 totaling to Rs.35,710/- was to be refunded to the complainant. Thereafter, in the bill dated 17/11/2016 the Opposite Parties have charged minimum charges of Rs.37,696/- and similarly the Opposite Parties charged Rs.46,739/- as CTPT charges which is also illegal. Not only this, the Opposite Parties vide bill dated 6/28, 7/18 and 8/18 charged the excess amount of Rs.3349/-, Rs.2859/- and Rs.2981/- from the complainant which is also liable to the refunded. The complainant made so many requests to the Opposite Parties to refund the aforesaid amount, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
- To refund the excess charged amount to the complainant alongwith future interest thereon upto date and also pay Rs.50,000/- on account of compensation for causing him mental tension and harassment or any other relief which this Commission may deem fit and proper may be awarded to the complainant.
Hence, the complainant has filed the complaint for the redressal of his grievance .
2. Upon notice, Opposite Parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable. Actual facts the complainant is running the business of rice sheller for the purpose of making huge profit having sanctioned load of 99.54 KW. Further, the complainant challenged the meter bearing Serial No.07421873 which was removed vide MCO No.10,0002669634 dated 27.09.2016 and the removed meter was sent to ME Lab and ME Lab checked the said meter vide challan No.10 dated 08.11.2016 and found that the meter is running fast and the account of the complainant was overhauled as per PSPCL rules and after overhauling the account, the amount of Rs.3,38,064/- has already been refunded to the complainant and thereafter, as per the consumption basis, the complainant has rightly been charged. As far as an amount of Rs.18,786/- is concerned, this amount has been wrongly charged under mistake and said amount is refundable. Actually, the rice sheller season period is Ist October 2016 to 30th May 2017 and bill dated 17.02.2017 contains reading dated 06.01.2017 to 08.02.2017 and reading was 34362 KVAH on 06.01.2017 and on 08.02.2017 was 53853 KVAH and the multiplier factor in the case of complainant is 2. Thus, the net consumption is 38982 units whereas the bill is prepared for 35353 units. In this way, the complainant received rice sheller refund of 3629 KVAH units amounting to Rs.18,145/- plus 20% tax which was refunded in bill dated 17.02.2017 and total amount refunded to Rs.21,774/-. As per as CTPT charges of Rs.46,739/- is concerned, this amount was wrongly charged and this amount was duly refunded on 25.10.2018 in the account of the complainant and as such, the TOD benefits have already been paid on each and every consumption bill and it is not payable on minimum charges bills, and thus, the complainant has no claim of TOD rebate and as such, the complainant has no rightful claim against the Opposite Parties. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
3. In order to prove his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C17 and closed his evidence.
4. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Parties tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Prince Kumar SDO Ex.OPs1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OPs2 to Ex.Ops16 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
5. We have heard ld.counsel for the Parties and also gone through the evidence produced on record.
6. Ld.counsel for the complainant has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that the complainant is running a business/ Rice Sheller under the name and style M/s.Vijay K Gupta and Co. and having industrial connection bearing Account No.3002964822 and is paying the consumption charges regularly and is running its business for the purpose of his livelihood. Further alleges that in the year 2016, the electricity meter of the complainant was changed as it was running fast. On the application of the complainant, the SDO concerned made checking No.92/210 and fund that the meter was running fast. Regarding this, Assistant Engineer of Opposite Parties also admitted that the bill of 03/16 to 09/16 was made on the basis of more units where the bill should be made on the basis of bill of 03/15 to 09/15 and as such, he agreed to pay refund of excess amount of Rs.3,38,064/-, Rs.15,624/- and Rs.18,786/- out of which the Opposite Parties paid/ refunded the amount of Rs.3,38,064/- in the bill 05/17 and the remaining amount due towards Opposite Parties. After adjustment an amount of Rs.41,817/- was to be paid by the Opposite Parties to the complainant. It is pertinent to mention over here that in the same bill i.e.06/17 the Opposite Parties has also charged Rs.250/- as surcharge and as such, the complainant is liable to get refund of Rs.5056/-. Further balance refund of Rs.15,624/- and Rs.18,786/- + Rs.1300/- as security charged deposited by the complainant on 20.11.2016 totaling to Rs.35,710/- was to be refunded to the complainant. Thereafter, in the bill dated 17/11/2016 the Opposite Parties have charged minimum charges of Rs.37,696/- and similarly the Opposite Parties charged Rs.46,739/- as CTPT charges which is also illegal. Not only this, the Opposite Parties vide bill dated 6/28, 7/18 and 8/18 charged the excess amount of Rs.3349/-, Rs.2859/- and Rs.2981/- from the complainant which is also liable to the refunded.
7. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the complainant on the ground that the complainant is running the business of rice sheller for the purpose of making huge profit having sanctioned load of 99.54 KW. Further, the complainant challenged the meter bearing Serial No.07421873 which was removed vide MCO No.10,0002669634 dated 27.09.2016 and the removed meter was sent to ME Lab and ME Lab checked the said meter vide challan No.10 dated 08.11.2016 and found that the meter is running fast and the account of the complainant was overhauled as per PSPCL rules and after overhauling the account, the amount of Rs.3,38,064/- has already been refunded to the complainant and thereafter, as per the consumption basis, the complainant has rightly been charged. As far as an amount of Rs.18,786/- is concerned, this amount has been wrongly charged under mistake and said amount is refundable. Actually, the rice sheller season period is Ist October 2016 to 30th May 2017 and bill dated 17.02.2017 contains reading dated 06.01.2017 to 08.02.2017 and reading was 34362 KVAH on 06.01.2017 and on 08.02.2017 was 53853 KVAH and the multiplier factor in the case of complainant is 2. Thus, the net consumption is 38982 units whereas the bill is prepared for 35353 units. In this way, the complainant received rice sheller refund of 3629 KVAH units amounting to Rs.18,145/- plus 20% tax which was refunded in bill dated 17.02.2017 and total amount refunded to Rs.21,774/-. As per as CTPT charges of Rs.46,739/- is concerned, this amount was wrongly charged and this amount was duly refunded on 25.10.2018 in the account of the complainant and as such, the TOD benefits have already been paid on each and every consumption bill and it is not payable on minimum charges bills, and thus, the complainant has no claim of TOD rebate and as such, the complainant has no rightful claim against the Opposite Parties. To prove its version, the Opposite Parties has placed on record Job Order for Device Replacement Ex.Ops2, Ex.Ops3, copy of ME Letter Ex.Ops4, copy of ME report Ex.Ops5 alongwith detailed calculations made by the Opposite Parties Ex.Ops6 and Ex.Ops7, copy of refund order regarding consumption of CTPT warranty period Ex.Ops10, copy of refund order Ex.Ops16. Perusal of the aforesaid calculations, we found no illegality in claiming the aforesaid amount by the Opposite Parties from the complainant because the due amount which was refundable as mentioned above has already been refunded to the complainant.
8. Furthermore, it is not disputed and the complainant has himself admitted that he is running the business of rice sheller for the purpose of making huge profit having sanctioned load of 99.54 KW. Moreover, the ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has taken the specific objection in the written statement that the complainant was using his electric connection to run a Rice Sheller which was being used “to earn profit” and complainant availed services of the appellants for “commercial purposes” and thus did not fall within the definition of “consumer” as provided under the Consumer Protection Act.. The amendment in the Act was carried out in the year 2002 vide Act No.62 of 2002 and the definition of consumer was further clarified to define the hiring or availing of the services and the person, who hires or avails services for any commercial purpose was excluded with this amendment. The Hon’ble National Commission in case “Ishwar Singh Vs Dakshin Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited”, II (2011) CPJ-18 (NC), has held that ‘Atta Chakki’ even though installed in the house would be for commercial purpose as nowhere it has been pleaded that ‘Atta Chakki’ was being used for own use of the complainant or that the ‘Atta Chakki’ was meant for his livelihood.
9. Thus, from the above discussion, it emerges that goods purchased for earning more profit and the services hired or availed for earning profits will fall within the ambit of the exclusion clause added by the Amended Act. The only exception to the same is where the goods bought and the services availed are used by a person for himself and for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self-employment. The Complainant has failed to prove that he is earning his livelihood by means of self employment. In this regard, Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh has taken similar view in F.A. No.834 of 2006 decided on 12.8.2011 titled as P.S.E.B. Vs. M/s Sood Rice Mills.
10. In view of above discussion and applying the above proposition of law to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the complainant is running a Rice Mill and the electric connection in question is being used to run the Rice Mill and it is for earning profit and the complainant has availed the services for commercial purpose. As such, as per amended provisions of the Act, it is excluded from the term “consumer” and the complaint is not maintainable. Thus, the complainant does not fall within the definition of “consumer”
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we find no merit in the complaint and the same stands dismissed. However, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
12. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the State Government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as the situation arising due to outbreak of the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19).
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated: 22.02.2022.
