Punjab

Sangrur

CC/189/2015

Life Line Multi Speciality Hospital - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rattan Kumar Verma

12 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                Complaint No.    189

                                                Instituted on:      08.04.2015

                                                Decided on:       12.08.2015

 

Life Line Multi Speciality Hospital, Sangrur through Sanjay Kumar partner.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its CMD/Chairman/Secretary.

2.     SDO/Executive Engineer, Rural, PSPCL Sangrur.                                                                   ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Rattan Verma, Adv.

For opposite parties    :       Shri Inderjit Ausht, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Sanjay Kumar partner Life Line Multi Speciality Hospital, Sangrur,  complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant has taken the building on rent and is running the hospital under the name and style as mentioned in the complaint. It is further averred that electric meter bearing account number S46GC460029X is running in the name of Dr. Amrish Mittal, Baba Aapo Aap Hospital and the complainant has been paying the bills regularly to the OPs.  It is further averred that the seals of the meter have been affixed properly.

 

2.             It is further averred that the meter in question was checked by the checking party on 9.2.2015 and at that time the seals were properly affixed and the meter has been installed outside the premises. 

 

3.             In the present case, the complainant is aggrieved on receipt of notice number 235 dated 20.2.2015 which was received on 20.3.2015 whereby the OPs have demanded an amount of Rs.3,30,847/- to be deposited by the complainant within a period of 15 days with the OPs.  It is further averred that the Ops cannot levy the penalty on the complainant as the meter is installed outside the premises of the complainant. The complainant approached the Ops for withdrawal of the notice in question, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to withdraw the notice dated 20.2.2015 and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

4.             In reply, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that the connection of the complainant is running for commercial purpose. It is also averred that the complainant is not a consumer of the OP as the connection is running in the name of Dr. Amrish Mittal, Baba Aapo Aap Hospital.  On merits, it is stated that the connection in question is being used for commercial purpose as in the hospital, the doctors, nurses, sweeper and other staff has been deployed for running the hospital.  It is further averred that the said electric connection was checked by Addl. SE Enforcement, PSPCL Mohali on 9.2.2015 along with other staff/officers and found that the meter in question was running slow by 67.51% and the checking was conducted in the presence of Dr. Sanjay Verma, who signed the checking report after admitting its contents as correct.  After receiving the report, the account of the consumer was overhauled and demand of Rs.3,30,847/- was raised vide notice dated 20.2.2015. The sanctioned load of the connection in question is 87.98 KW from which it is very much clear that the connection is being used for commercial purposes.  It is also stated that the connection of the complainant was disconnected vide PDCO number 124/41151 dated 31.3.2015 and the same was effected on 10.4.2015. It is further stated that thereafter the complainant submitted the order of this Forum and deposited an amount of Rs.1,32,339/- on 16.4.2015 and the connection was restored. Any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied.

 

5.             The complainant has also filed rejoinder whereby the complainant has denied that the meter was running slow to the extent of 67.51% and the meter was not sent to the ME laboratory for checking and the meter is working outside the premises of the building.  However, the remaining allegations of the complaint have been reiterated.

 

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit of Sanjay Kumar, Ex.C-2 copy of bill dated 26.3.2015, Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-7 are the copies of bills and receipts, Ex.C-8 copy of notice, Ex.C-9 copy of reply of notice , Ex.C-10 copy of postal receipt, Ex.C-11 to Ex.C-26 copies of receipts and bills and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has produced on record Ex.OP-1 copy of checking report dated 9.2.2015, Ex.OP-2 copy of letter dated 20.2.2015, Ex.OP-3 copy of PDCO, Ex.OP-4 copy of letter dated 13.4.2015, Ex.OP-5 affidavit of Er. Sukhbir Singh and Ex.OP-6 affidavit of Er. Damanjit Singh and closed evidence.

 

7.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

               

8.             A bare perusal of the file clearly reveals that the sanctioned load of the connection in question is 87.98 KW which is being used in order to run the hospital under the name and style of Life Line Multi Speciality Hospital, Sangrur. It is not the case of the complainant that the hospital is being run by him only in order to earn his livelihood by way of self employment. It is worth mentioning here that even a single word has not been uttered by the complainant in the complaint that the hospital is being run in order to earn his livelihood by way of self employment. Whereas, on the other hand, the stand of the Ops is that the hospital is being run with the help of helpers such as sweepers, nurses and other staff in order to earn profits.  As such, it is contended by the learned counsel for the Ops that the complainant is being used for commercial purposes in order to generate more and more profits.  The learned counsel for the Ops has further contended that where the commercial purpose has been established, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable as the complainant do not fall within the meaning of ‘consumer’ and cannot be a ‘complainant’ for the purpose of filing a complaint before the Consumer Forum as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and others 2013(3) CLT 227 (SC).  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant has also cited Delhi Public School versus The M.D. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others 2015(1) CLT 104 (NC), wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held that the complaint filed by a public school is maintainable under the Act as the complainant (school) is not generating any goods by use of electric connection, but this electric connection has been obtained for the purposes of electrification in the school, hence does not fall within the purview of electric connection for commercial purpose and complaint was maintainable before District Fora.  But, the case in hand relates to a private hospital, which is only and only meant to generate profit and employees such as sweepers, nurses and doctors have been employed.  As Such, the above said ruling cited by the learned counsel for the complainant is not at all applicable in the different circumstances of the case.  Further the learned counsel for the OPs has cited Sanjay Agro Industries Limited versus UHBVN Ltd. and another 2012(2) CLT 32 (NC), wherein it has been held that if the complainant is a commercial entity and having availed the services of the OPs purely for commercial purpose, the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer within the meaning of section 2(i)(d)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

9.               The case of the complainant is that the complainant has taken the building on rent, but he has not produced on record any rent agreement or any affidavit of the person from whom the building has been taken on rent by the complainant. There is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why he did not produce the rent agreement on record, as such, the complainant cannot be said to be a ‘consumer’ of the OPs and his complaint is not maintainable and deserves dismissal on this score also.

 

10.            Further we have perused the copy of checking report dated 09.02.2015, a copy of which on record is Ex.OP-1, which shows that the copy of the same was duly received by Dr. Sanjay Verma.  It is not the case of the complainant that the checking report was not signed by him or the same was got signed under influence or fraud.  The learned counsel for the Ops has also contended that in the present case the checking report has been signed by a literate person like Dr. Sanjay Verma, hence, there should be a presumption, unless there is proof of or fraud, that he has read the document properly and understood. Presumption is stronger in cases of businessmen they being careful people. The above preposition of law has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. and another versus M/s. Aggarwal Steel 2009(4) Civil Court Cases 598 (SC). 

 

11.              We have further perused the copy of checking report, Ex.C-OP-1, which shows  that the meter of the consumer was checked by the checking party with ERS meter and found that the meter was running slow to the extent of 67.51% and it was held to be a case of wrong metering by the checking officials. It is further on record that on the basis of the checking report, the notice dated 20.2.2015 directing the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs.3,30,847/- was issued, which amount was demanded in view of instructions of the PSPCL. The learned counsel for OPs has also cited Regulation number 71.4 of the Electricity Supply Regulations, which provides that “Meters installed at the consumers premises other than LS category shall be tested by Enforcement/MMTS with the help of ERS meters at normal running load/power factor of the consumer subject to the condition that the running load shall not be less than 15% of the sanctioned load. Before testing meter, the CT connection wherever applicable shall be checked thoroughly”.  It is further stated in the sales regulation number 71.4.3 that the overhauling of the accounts shall be carried out for a maximum period of six billing months preceding the billing month of detection of defect/error in the meter.  It is the case of the Ops that the OPs have raised the notice dated 20.2.2015 only after overhauling the account of the complainant for six preceding bills.  As Such, we feel that the complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

 

12.            In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                August 12, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member