BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.503 of 2018

      Date of Instt. 13.12.2018

      Date of Decision: 08.02.2022

Nand Kishore Khurana aged about 50 years son of Shri Madan Lal Khurana, resident of H. No.881, Gali No.4, Katra Mohalla, Basti Danishmandan, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, The Mall, Patiala through         its Chairman.

2.       The Assistant Executive Engineer, Model Town Commercial   Sub-Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited,     Jalandhar.

3.       The Sub-Divisional Officer, Punjab State Power Corporation   Limited, Adarsh Nagar, Near Chick Chick House, Jalandhar.

4.       The Assistant Executive Engineer, Commercial Sub-Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Adarsh Nagar, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)                                         

Present:       Sh. Jatinder Sharma, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   Sh. D. R. Seth, Adv. Counsel for the OPs No.1 to 4.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein he has alleged that he is manufacturing cooler parts in the name and style of M/s Laxmi Industries at Jalandhar since last 20 years and an electricity connection bearing account No.3001771849 is installed in the shop of the complainant and has been regularly paying the electricity bills to the OPs from time to time as per actual consumption. That in the month of February, 2018 the technical staff of the OPs changed the old meter with a new electricity meter. After the installation of new electricity meter, the complainant received bill amounting to RS.11,910/- which was much higher than the bills received for that period and when the complainant checked the meter by closing the main electricity supply to the house, the electricity meter was still running. The complainant thereafter, approached the OP No.4 and apprised about the fast running of said meter, who advised the complainant to challenge the said meter by moving an application and complainant was also asked to deposit the bill amount and also moved an application dated 30.05.2018 for challenging said meter and had also deposited an amount of Rs.400/- for the same. That thereafter, the OPs changed the electricity meter of the complainant with the new meter, but strange enough the complainant was still receiving electricity bill on higher side as he had received a bill amounting to Rs.10,000/- for the period August, 2018. The complainant again checked said electricity meter and found that said electricity meter was running very fast. The complainant approached OP No.4 and apprised about the fast running of electricity meter, who told the complainant to deposit the bill amounting to Rs.10,100/- and assured the complainant to get the said meter checked and if any excessive amount was received from the complainant that would be adjusted in later bills. That thereafter in the month of October, 2018, the complainant received a message showing the bill amount of Rs.-6631/-, which shows that the electricity bill of the complainant is in minus amount, meaning thereby no amount of bill is due towards the complainant. That in the month of December, 2018 the complainant was shocked to receive a bill dated 26.11.2018, wherein the demand of Rs.19,940/- was raised by the OPs. The complainant after receiving said bill approached OP No.4 for getting the clarification regarding above said bill, but no satisfactory reply has been given to the complainant, rather the complainant the official of the OPs amended the bill from Rs.19,948/- to Rs.20,040/- and threatened the complainant to deposit the amount of Rs.20,040/- otherwise, the electricity connection will be disconnected. That it is worthwhile to mention here that above said demand/bill is vague and illegal, moreover no clarification has been provided to the complainant by the OPs regarding the bill amounting to Rs.20,040/- which was much excessive as compared to the previous bills for the said period. That on 07.12.2018, the complainant visited the office of OP No.4 and requested the official concerned of OP No.4 that he has already cleared all the electricity bills, which were received by the complainant from time to time and further asked the official concerned regarding clarification about the bill dated 26.11.2018 of RS.19,940/- which was enhanced to Rs.20,040/- as the complainant earlier received bill in minus amount and that minus amount shall be adjusted in the later bills and the complainant also told the official concerned that he is ready to pay the bill as per average, but concerned staff of the OPs instead of giving any clarification threatened to disconnect the electric connection in case the complainant failed to pay the bill amounting to Rs.20,040/-         . That the demand of Rs.20,040/- is illegal, null and void as the same is on the very higher side as the complainant was receiving average bill for the amount of Rs.4000-5000/- for the said period. Moreover, the complainant was receiving the bill in minus amount as narrated above, thus, the OPs without adjusting the minus amount issued the bill dated 26.11.2018. That the act of the OPs are totally wrong, illegal, unlawful, incorrect and is not binding upon the complainant and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to set-aside the demand of Rs.20,040/- as the same is illegal, null and void and further OPs be directed to accept bill amount on average basis and further OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- for causing deficiency in service and as damages on account of mental tension and harassment suffered by the complainant due to the negligence of the OPs and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. Further OPs be directed to change the electricity meter with new one.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed joint written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable as the charges leveled are on account of actual consumption of the electricity consumed by the complainant/consumer from his NRS Connection. That the complainant does not have any cause of action against the OPs. That the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. That the complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint. It is further averred that the Commission does not have the jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint as the complainant should have approached the Dispute Settlement Committee of the OPs to get his case/dispute decided. Moreover, the electricity connection is issued for commercial purposes. On merits, the installation of the meter in the shop of the complainant is admitted and further it is also admitted that the OPs changed the old meter with a new one, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the argument from learned counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.                Before imparting with the main controversy, between the parties, we preferred to, firstly take a legal issue raised by the OPs in the written statement that the electric connection is issued for commercial purpose and the electric connection account no.3001771849 NRS having sanctioned load of 7.600 KW being used for commercial purposes, as such it is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act and complainant totally failed to prove this point whether the shop of the complainant for manufacturing cooler parts in the name and style of M/s Laxmi Industries is the only source of income of the complainant and is livelihood of the complainant and his family members. Even this aspect again raised by the OP in its affidavit Ex.OP-1 filed by one Er. Munish Kumar, Additional Superintending Engineer of the OP Company, but this evidence of the OP is again not controverted by the complainant in his affidavit. So, it means that the complainant has indirectly admitted that M/s Laxmi Industries was for business purpose as well as for commercial use. It is not a case of the complainant that the same is for earning his livelihood. Even the bills produced on record and relied upon by the complainant Ex.A1, Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-11 to Ex.C-15 show the meter is being used for commercial purpose, having sanctioned load of 7.600 KW. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the connection being used in M/s Laxmi Industries is for business purpose and for commercial use and in support of these observations, we take an opportunity to refer some relevant judgments of the Hon’ble National Commission/State Commission, cited in 2015 (2) CPJ 13, titled as “M/s R. K. Handicrafts and another Vs. M/s Parma Nand Ganda Singh and Co. & others”, wherein his Lordship held as under:-

“Purchase of diesel generator set – Defects – Not replaced – Complaint filed – Dismissal of – Hence, revision petition – Generator was purchased for generating electricity to run the factory for manufacture of handloom products – Complainant not consumer–Complaint was rightly dismissed, as not maintainable”.     

On the same point, we further like to refer an other pronouncement of Hon’ble National Commission, cited in 2014(1) CPJ 332, titled as “Lords Wear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rance Computers Pvt. Ltd.”, wherein his Lordship held as under:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2(1)(d) and 21 (b) Purchase of software–During installation, software not found functional –Defects in removed – Complaint allowed – Order reversed by state commission– Challenged by revision – Held, purchased by private limited company and not by any individual – It has nowhere been pleaded that Managing Director is running business in name of complainant for earning his livelihood – Thus, complainant is not a consumer – Interference declined in impugned order.”  

          Further, we also like to refer an other pronouncement of Hon’ble National Commission, cited in 2015(4) CPR 255, titled as “Manu Talwar & Anr. Vs. BPTP Limited”, wherein his Lordship held as under:-

“A. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2(1)(d) Consumer–Definition and scope of–Services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood– Explanation appended thereto–Cannot be equated with extension of business activities which are already in existence.

“B. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2(1)(d) Consumer – Definition and scope of – Question to be considered as to whether complainants, who transact business in partnership, under name and style of “Objects D’ Art India” are ‘Consumers’?” – Held, in negative.”

 7.               In view of the above discussion and the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission, we find that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, the complainant can avail the remedy, if any, available under law regarding the present dispute of connection. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work. 

8.               Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated                                         Jyotsna                        Dr.Harveen Bhardwaj     

08.02.2022                      Member                      President