Tejender Singh had an electric meter for running a sugarcane crusher.  He leased the crusher to the petitioner.  Vigilance staff of the respondent checked the premises and found that the meter was tilted deliberately to stop the dice of the meter.  Vigilance staff came to the conclusion that the electric meter had been tilted to steal the energy.  Penalty of Rs.35,303/- was imposed on Tejender Singh.

          Instead of Tejender Singh, in whose name the electric meter was installed, the petitioner, who was the lessee, filed the complaint before the District Forum claiming himself to be a consumer seeking setting aside of the penalty amount.  Penalty order was challenged on the ground that the checking was done in his absence fraudulently without issuing any Notice to him. 

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to refund the penalty amount already deposited by the complaint along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of deposit till realization of payment within one month from the date of the order.

          Respondent, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission, by the impugned order, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum.  The State Commission held that the petitioner was not a consumer and, therefore, the complaint filed by him was not maintainable; that the meter had been checked in the presence of Ram Karan, working on the sugarcane crusher of the petitioner on the date of checking; that Ram Karan made an endorsement on the checking report to the effect that it had been checked in his presence; that no Notice was required to be issued to the petitioner as the respondent Board did not have either any privity of contract with the petitioner nor the knowledge that a lease deed had been executed between the petitioner and Tejender Singh.

          I agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  The agreement of the respondent UHBVNL was with Tejender Singh.  Since there was no agreement between the respondent and the petitioner, the petitioner did not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’  given in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, as he had not hired the services of the respondent.  The contention that the meter was checked in the absence of the petitioner cannot be accepted, as the same had been checked in the presence of Ram Karan, who was working on the sugarcane crusher.  No Notice was required to be issued to the petitioner, as the petitioner did not either have a contract with the respondent nor was the respondent informed about the lease deed executed between the petitioner and Tejender Singh.  No merits.  Dismissed.