BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/912 of 19.10.2010 

                                                Decided on:          20.9.2011

Ranjeet Singh aged about 62 years son of S.Ram Singh, resident of House No.310 St.No.3, Jagtar Nagar, Patiala.

                                                                             -----------Complainant

                                      Versus

1.                 Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through Chairman/Secretary, Patiala.

2.                 Xen, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division, North,Patiala.

                                                                             ----------Opposite parties.

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

For the complainant:     Smt.Mandeep Kaur, Advocate

For opposite parties:     Sh.Pawan Puri, Advocate

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

          The complainant is a consumer of the electricity connection bearing account No.P45MS45042SE. The complainant has been paying the bills of the electricity regularly.

2.       The complainant received bill dated 8.8.2010 having raised the demand of Rs.76440/-.The complainant visited the office of SDO North Sub Division, Patiala who assured the complainant that the matter will be looked into. The SDO changed the meter of the complainant. Then the complainant received the bill dated 9.9.2010 for Rs.1,15,360/-.The complainant again visited the office of the ops who asked the complainant to deposit half of the amount of the bill for the time being and assured him to look into the matter, but nothing was done and instead another bill dated 8.10.2010 for Rs.1,30,290/- was issued to him. The complainant visited the office of SDO North Sub Division, Patiala who assured the complainant to look into the matter but nothing was done.

3.       The complainant was being forced by the ops to deposit Rs.1,30,290/- of the bill dated 8.10.2010 or to face disconnection of the supply. Describing the demand of the bill dated 8.10.2010 to be illegal, null and void the complainant approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short the Act) for a direction to the ops to cancel the bill dated 8.10.2010; to pay him the compensation in a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment and the mental torture suffered by him at the hands of the ops and also to award him the costs of the complaint.

4.       On notice, the ops appeared and filed their written version having raised the preliminary objection that the complainant is using the Medium Supply( Industrial connection) for commercial purposes and for earning profit. The sanctioned load of the connection is 80.31KW.The complainant has employed several workers and therefore, the complainant is not a consumer under the Act. As regards the facts of the complaint, it is denied, if the complainant is doing the business for earning his livelihood. The ops have issued the bills to the complainant as per the actual consumption recorded by the meter.The meter of the complainant had been changed as per the request made by the complainant. The concerned office of the ops is issuing the energy bills as per the actual consumption recorded by the new meter. There is no difference in the consumption pattern of the new meter as compared to the old one, meaning thereby that the old meter of the complainant was also OK and the bills had been issued as per the actual consumption shown by the meter. The complainant has not challenged the new meter installed by the ops. The meter is working properly. The demand has been raised by the ops rightly and legally. The allegations made in the complaint are said to be frivolous and vague. Ultimately, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5.       In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence, Ex.C1, his sworn affidavit alongwith documents,Exs.C2 to C7 and his learned counsel closed the evidence.

6.       On the other hand, on behalf of the ops their learned counsel produced in evidence,Ex.R1, the sworn affidavit of Nishant Singla,SDO operation of the North Sub Division i.e. op no.2, alongwith documents,Exs.R2 to R11 and closed their evidence.

7.       The complainant filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone though the evidence on record.

8.       First of all it has to be seen as to whether the complainant is a consumer as provided under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. It is simply averred by the complainant that the electricity connection is installed at C59,Focal Point, Patiala, where the complainant is running the business of Auto parts to earn his livelihood. Here it may be noted that the sanctioned load of the electricity connection in question is 80.31 KW and as per the plea taken up by the ops, the complainant is running an industrial unit for manufacturing purposes. The complainant has employed several workers for running the said industry. Therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the complainant to have produced the copy of the relevant register showing the persons employed by it and also to have produced the copy of the balance sheet for the financial year 2009-10 showing the out turn of the complainant as also the profits and loss.

9.       Nothing is disclosed by the complainant as to what are the goods to have been manufactured by the complainant and to whom the same are sold. The very fact that the complainant has got the sanctioned load of 80.31KW is itself suffice to show that the complainant is running the industry for commercial purposes.

10.     Here, it may be noted that in the case of the citation Mintu Das Vesus WBSEDCL & Anr.2011(2)CLT8, the Hon’ble West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata observed, “ in the complaint petition the complainant no where stated that he has applied for the electric connection for the purpose of earning his livelihood as per Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act and that, “hires or avails” of any services does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes, ‘for the purposes of this clause commercial purpose does not include used by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. In the instant case the complainant did not mention within the four corners  of the petition of complaint that the business for which electric connection was sought for by him was the only way for earning his livelihood by means of self employment. Therefore, in view of settled position of law, the present complainant-appellant can not be termed as consumer within the purview of the definition of the Consumer Protection Act”

11.     Now coming to the merits of the complaint, the complainant has assailed the bill dated 8.10.2010 to be on the higher side although the complainant got the meter changed after he had received the bill dated 8.8.2010.

12.     It was submitted by the learned counsel for the ops that in case the complainant was not satisfied with the working of the meter he should have challenged the same by way of depositing the requisite fee with the ops , in the absence of which the complainant should not be allowed to say that simply because the consumption recorded in the bill is on the higher side, the same may not be recovered from him.

13.     We have considered the submission and find that the complainant could not ascribe any deficiency to the ops simply because the amount of the bill dated 8.10.2010, Ex.C2 , as per the complainant is on the higher side. The complainant should have challenged the meter by deposing the requisite fee in this regard failing which he is obliged to deposit the amount of the bill.

14.     As per the case of the complainant, the meter was replaced after he had received bill dated 8.8.2010 for Rs.76440/- and thereafter he had received the bill dated 9.9.2010 for Rs.1,15,360/- .Now the bill in question dated 8.10.2010 was issued for Rs.1,30,220/-. Therefore there does not appear any defect in the recording of the consumption by the replaced meter. May that as it be we do not find any deficiency of service on the part of the ops and therefore, the complaint is bound to fail and the same is hereby dismissed.

Pronounced.

Dated:20.9.2011

                                                Neelam Gupta        D.R.Arora

                                                Member                            President