ORDER

PARAMJIT SINGH (PRESIDENT.)

Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant is having electric connection bearing A/C No. M.S.-188(HT Supply) installed at Factory area, Kapurthala for sortex purpose and he has been running that Unit for earning his livelihood. . The complainant deposited the amount a demanded by the opposite parties and also furnished partnerhip deed to the opposite parties, so there is no question of any unauthorized use of electricy by the complainant. It is further alleged that complainant received memo notice dated 22/3/2010 vide which allegation of unauthorized use of electricity was made inspite of the fact that complainant even deposited Rs.30000/- more for the same. No checking whatsoever, was conducted by the opposite parties to detect unauthrised use of electricity. As such opposite parties have acted arbitrarily and violated their own Sales Regulations in sending false and vague notice to the complainant which clearly shows that there is deficiency in servie on the part of opposite parties against which complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed.

2. Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite parties who appeared through counsel and filed written statement taking preliminary objection that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. It is further pleaded that complainant got released the M.S. connection in individual capacity and now the complainant has been using the electricity for Shivam Sortex and had employed number of employees and has been using the said connection for milling paddy and for obtaining oil from the same to be sold in the market and hence the present complaint does not lie under the consumer Protection Act and same is liable to be dismissed. . The connection of the complainant was released on 1/10/2001 and sanctioned load in this case is 95,772 KW. On 5/3/2010 Sr.Executive Engineer, Enforcement alongwith SDO City Sub Division No.1 checked the connection of the complainant in the presence of representative of the complainant and found that connection is being used by M/s Shivam Sortex and the complainant was using 123.119 KW load instead of load of 95.772 KW. The checking party noted their observations in the checking register at SR. NO.35/2134 dated 5/3/2010. The representative of the complainant signed the checking report after admitting it correct and received copy of the checking report at the spot. . As such provisional assessment order vide memo No.3029 dated 22/3/2010 was rightly sent by the opposite parties to the complainant to deposit Rs. 9,73,663/- as per annexure 8 of supply Code. . Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3. In support of his version complainant has produced in evidence affidavit Ex.CA and documents Ex.C1 to C7.

4. On the other hand opposite parties produced in evidence documents and affidavits Ex.R1 to R18.

5. The case to connect the complainant is that complainant No.1 got electric connection bearing A/C No. M.S.-188(HT Supply) hving sanctioned load of 95.772 KW in his name in the year 2001 to run the Sortex unit with partnership of his real brother and wife of his brother under the name of M/s Shivam Sortex. The only one sortex unit is being run and for that complainant entered into a partnership deed on 1/5/2000 vide Ex.C1. And as alleged by the opposite parties, the connection of the complainant was checked by Sr.Executive Engineer, Enforcement alongwith SDO City Sub Division No.1 on 5/3/2010 and found that connection was being used by M/s Shivam Sortex and the complainant was found using 123.119 KW load against sanctioned load of 95.772 KW load for Shivam Sortex. Accordingly provisional assessment order vide memo No. 3029 dated 22/3/2010 was sent by asessing authority of the opposite parties to the complainant for Rs.973663/- vide Ex.R8 who provided personal opportunity to put forth his version on 23/4/2010. The competent authority after affording personal hearing to the complainant sent final assessment order for unauthorized use of electricity vide memo NO.311 dated 26/4/2010 vide Ex.R2 requiring complainant to deposit Rs.973663/- and separate notice vide memo No. 1789 dated 8/3/2010 was also sent to the complainant to deposit Rs.20510/- as load surcharge of 27.349 KW allegedly detected by the officers of the opposite parties at the time of checking of premises of the complainant. Opposite parties installed electric connection of the complainant bearing A/C No. M.S.-188(HT Supply) of 95.772 KW under medium supply category for sortex purpose. And it does not include use by the complainant for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment and as such complainant is not covered as consumer under section 2)i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 amended upto date. Further reliance has also been placed upon a case reported as Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation vs. Ashok Iron Works Private Limited III (2009) CPJ 5 (SC)

In view of our above discussion, the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint before this Forum and the same is disposed of accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Complainant is however, at liberty to file civil suit against opposite parties, if so desires to seek appropriate remedies regarding his grievances against the opposite parties.

Let certified copies of order be supplied to the parties without delay and file be consigned to record room.

Announced : Shashi Narang Gulshan Prashar Paramjit Singh

26.8.2010 Member Member President.