1.       The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against Respondent as detailed above, under section 58 (1) (b)  of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the order dated 24.08.2021 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 1745 of 2015 in which order dated 25.07.2015 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 06 of 2014 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 24.08.2021 of the State Commission.

2.       While the Revision Petitioners (hereinafter also referred to as OPs ) were Appellants and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent in the said FA No. 1745 of 2015 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioners were OPs and Respondent was Complainant before the District Forum in the CC no. 06 of 2014.

3.       Notice was issued to the Respondents on 06.04.2022. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 12.07.2023 and 24.02.2023 respectively.

4.       Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that Complainant is a consumer of electricity connection no. 295121 and account no. 1087521 was allotted to him.  Newly constructed shops are located on the ground floor in the building of the complainant in which all the tenants pay the electricity bill having electricity meter in their own name.  The family of the complainant lives in seven rooms located on the first and second floor of the house and in seven other rooms, the complainant runs a Dharamshala, namely, ‘Prakash Guest House ‘and receives a little donation from the pilgrims in lieu of accommodation.  The complainant increased the power load of 7 kw electricity in  his premises on his own and kept paying the bills regularly.  On 06.07.2011, the old electricity meter installed in the premises of the complainant was changed to new meter bearing number 5242  and the bill of Rs.1,32,200/- sent to him on the basis of the meter reading on the above connection was paid.  After that, wrong bills of Rs.1,27,242/- of different dates were sent to him by the Petitioner and Petitioner did not adjust the amount of Rs.1,32,200/- which he  had already deposited.  Being aggrieved of this, the Complainant filed the CC before the District Forum and the District Commission vide order dated 25.07.2015 partly allowed the CC.  Aggrieved by the decision of the District Forum, the OPs filed an Appeal before the State Commission which was dismissed.   Hence the OPs are before this Commission now in the present RP.

5.       Petitioners have challenged the said Order dated 24.08.2021 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

1. The present case is a non consumer dispute because the respondent had taken the electric connection of 2 kw for running guest  house / shops which is a commercial purpose and ,therefore, respondent is not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act.

2. The Fora below did not consider the fact that bill of Rs.1,27,242/- was sent to the respondent in respect of his new meter.

3. The State Commission did not consider the fact that old meter was got replaced by the Petitioner with new meter since respondent had been using electricity in 16 rooms which was more than the capacity of meter due to excess load.

4. Billing of the respondent was being done on the basis of the minimum consumption of old meter but respondent never submitted the ceiling certificate of the replaced meter.

5. Since first meter of the respondent was stopped and replaced and after adjusting the amount of Rs.1,37,142/- deposited by the respondent, the bill of remaining arrear of Rs.1,27,242/- was sent to the respondent on 31.12.2003 as per rules, which fact is not considered by the Fora below.

6. After receiving the revised bill of Rs.1,27,242/- respondent did not deposit any amount.

7. As per the statement of respondent himself, he was using the electricity of Rs.10,000/- per month but still he did not deposit the arrears of the electricity charges.

8. District Forum did not consider that the rate of electricity charges is not Rs.4/- per unit in case of respondent and fixed / demand charges / electricity duty and other charges have not been calculated by the District Forum and District Forum has reduced Rs.12,000/- @ Rs.1000/- at its own without any basis.

9. District Forum has no jurisdiction as the connection is commercial.
10. The Consumer Forum cannot entertain electricity bill dispute as it is well settled that if a consumer received a wrong bill, he should have made representation before the Electrical Inspector and the respondent did not submit any representation before the Electricity Inspector. 

6.       Heard counsels of both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

6.1. Counsel for the Petitioner repeated the points which are stated in para 5, grounds for challenging the order of the State Commission, hence the same are not being repeated here

6.2     Counsel for the respondent argued that there are concurrent findings of the Fora below and revisional powers of the National Commission can be exercised only if there is there is some prima facie jurisdictional error in the impugned order.  Reliance has  been placed on the findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Ruby Chandra Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Company ( 2011) AIR ( SCW) 2311 : 2011 ( 3) JT 586.

6.3.    Counsel further argued that respondent is  occupying 7 rooms for residential purpose for himself and his family in the first and second floor of the premises where the electricity connection is installed and that respondent also runs a Dharamshala and provides accommodation to the pilgrims who came and visit Varanasi upon receiving little donation from such pilgrims.  It is argued that meter is used for residential purpose  and for the purpose of providing accommodation receives  small amount of donation which voluntarily is paid by the pilgrims, which under no circumstances can be termed as user of the electricity connection for commercial purpose.

6.4.    It is further argued that Petitioner has raised illegal and arbitrary bills and that Petitioner has nowhere stated or clarified as to why three bills were raised for three different amounts within a span of one month when the respondent was regularly paying the electricity bills. 

6.5.    Counsel for the Respondent further argued that in the present case the respondent is a bonafide consumer and the complainant was made before the District Forum with regard to charging of illegal and false bills in respect of electricity connection and, therefore, District Forum has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue.

7.       The main contention raised by the Petitioners is about the maintainability of the case before Consumer Forums on the ground that the Respondent is not a Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act as he has obtained a commercial connection and the same was being used for commercial purposes. Hence, the Consumer Forums have no jurisdiction to entertain the Consumer complainant.

8.       The Respondent on the other hand contended that the Guest House in question was being run for providing free services to the pilgrims based on voluntary donation and no charges are made for the same. The Petitioners also contended that the District Forum has not given any definite findings on whether the demand made by the Petitioners was wrong and to what extent rather has gone by extraneous considerations on sympathetic grounds thereby ordering the payment of Rs. 75,000/- only and waiving off the remaining amount payable as per the demands raised by the Petitioner. This according to the Petitioners, was not a judicial adjudication of the issue. It is also contended by the Petitioners that out of 16 rooms, the Respondent claims to be using 7 rooms for his family purposes and remaining for Guest House. According to Petitioners, no prudent persons will get a commercial meter installed for residential purposes and pay commercial rates and hence possibly most of the rooms are used for Guest House purpose only, which is a commercial purpose.

9.       Ld. Counsel for the Respondent argued that even if the connection is for commercial purpose, he was running the Guest House for earning his livelihood, although he simultaneously states that the Guest House was run free of charge on Voluntary donation basis.

10.     We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission and District Forum.  The relevant portion of the District Forum’s order is reproduced below :

“……………

The complainant runs a Guest House on the  banks of holy mother Ganga.  Guests rarely comes in his guest house.  He is devotee and priest of Baba Vishwanath and mother Ganga but he has told in the open Court that if he does not get justice then he will suffer irreparable loss.  In the circumstances of the case, the complainant is a poor businessman.  He earns livelihood of his family from the lodge itself.  The bill generated for  his premises is  not based on the counting of lights and fans installed in his premises.  We have seen the objections.  The meter reading is somewhat excessive. Therefore, it would be appropriate to give justice to the complainant by the Forum. If the complainant deposits Rs. 75,000, then it would be appropriate to cancel/waive off the notice of the balance dues of Rs. 2,95,418/- and it is not proper to give any other relief to the complainant. Respondent is guilty of deficiency in service. Increasing the bill for four days amounts to deficiency in service.

ORDER

The complaint of complainant Radhey Shyam is partially allowed. If the complainant pays Rs. 75,000/- within two months from today or deposits the amount in the court, which is payable to the Electricity Department, then the Opposite Parties are directed to treat the aforesaid amount as part payment against the entire electricity dues/arrears of Rs. 2,95,418/- against connection no. 295121 which is installed in the complainant's House No. D-17/146 Mohalla Dashshwamedh, Varanasi and the entire arrears will be treated to be written off and entry thereof shall be made in their records.  The Opposite Parties will henceforth send electricity bill to the complainant as per the meter reading and the complainant shall pay them regularly.  The Opposite Parties shall not disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant without permission of the court.  Except for the above relief, the remaining complaint of the complainant stands rejected.”

     Relevant portion of State Commission’s order is reproduced below :

“We have heard the parties  in detail and perused the evidences on record.  The present dispute pertains to electricity dues / arrears. The bills have been paid  by the complainant as per the meter installed earlier in his premises.  Later, a second  meter was installed in his premises and exaggerated bills were sent to  him and the amount already deposited by the complainant was also not adjusted in the subsequent bills.  The complainant voluntarily got the load of his meter increased.  He was not even found stealing electricity.

          After thoroughly perusing the evidence available on record, we find that the District Forum has passed the judgment after thorough consideration of the evidence, which is just and proper and does not warrant any interference.

          Consequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

ORDER

Instant appeal stands dismissed.

Each party shall bear its own costs.”

11.     A perusal of the order of the District Forum shows that contentions of the petitioner that District Forum has not given any definite findings on whether the demand made by the petitioners was wrong and to what extent, rather has gone by extraneous considerations, thereby ordering payment of Rs.75,000/- only and waiving off the remaining amount payable from the demand raised by the petitioner, is correct.  Further, we find that State Commission has not given any valid / sound reasons for upholding the order of the District Forum and dismissing the appeal.

12.     In view of the above, RP is allowed, order of the State Commission as well as District Forum is set aside, complaint of the respondent is dismissed.

13.     The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.