Haryana

Karnal

CC/651/2022

Jaspreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sub Divisional Officer (OP) Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Ravi Chauhan

16 Oct 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 651 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt.18.11.2022

                                                        Date of Decision: 16.10.2024

 

Jaspreet Singh aged about 44 years son of Shri Ajit Singh, resident of house no.2885, Shanti Bhawan, Sadar Bazar Karnal, Tehsil and District Karnal.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Sub Divisional Officer (OP) Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Sub Division UHBN L-13, Sub Urban, Karnal, District Karnal.

 

…..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.

              Ms. Neeru Agarwal……Member

      Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur…….Member

 

Argued by: Shri Ravi Chauhan, counsel for the complainant.

                   Shri Jatin Jain, counsel for the OP.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant is the consumer of the OP and having electricity connection bearing account no.5052684240 in the name of the complainant. The complainant requires a electricity connection and in this regard on 16.04.2018, complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.12,200/- with the OP, vide receipt dated 16.04.2018 and Rs.330/- on the same date against receipts and the complainant applied for a new electricity connection for his premises/accommodation situated at Mangal Pur Colony, Karnal, Tehsil and District Karnal having three floor. In total complainant has deposited the sum of Rs.19214/- with the OP as the security amount. After depositing the amount of security with the OP, the OP commenced/started to issue the electricity bill to the complainant on the mobile phone of the complainant. No electricity connection was ever issued by the OP which was very urgently required by the complainant to the premises. Then complainant met the OP on what basis the said bill has been issued to the complainant and he moved an application in this regard to the OP on the same date i.e. 30.04.2019. The bill has been issued by the OP to the complainant on the aforesaid mobile phone. The complainant again moved an application to the OP on 27.08.2019 in this regard. On 27.11.2019, complainant again requested the OP that the electricity connection has not been provided in his premises inspite of his repeated requests and demands oral as well as in written and issued the bill time and again to the complainant but in vain. Complainant requested the OP for the issuance of the electricity connection to his premises, but OP did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other.  On 16.09.2020, complainant again requested the OP that the electricity connection has not been provided in his premises inspite of his repeated requests and demands oral as well as in written and issued the bills time and again to the complainant, but in vain. The complainant has to give the accommodation on rent at the rate of Rs.28000/- however, due to the failure of the OP in non-providing the electricity connection to the said premises/accommodation of the complainant, he could not give the same on rent and as such the complainant has to suffer from the huge losses to the tune of Rs.15,40,000/- approximately till date for a period of 55 months. The complainant has sent many messages through twitter including Shri Shashank Anad IPS, MD of UHBVN Haryana at Panchkula, but in vain. Some under scheme of the OP, the complainant was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.6,56,228/-, however, on the request of the complainant, they have got deposited a sum of Rs.86506/- on 28.10.2022 for the issuance of the electricity connection to his premises/accommodation which amount was absolutely wrong and illegal one, inspite of this, no electricity connection was ever issued by the OP which was very urgently required by the complainant to the premises. The OP has asked the complainant that the electricity connection has been disconnected whereas no such electricity connection has been given/connected, then the question of disconnection of the same by the OP does not arise at all. The complainant has neither received any information regarding providing the electricity connection from the OP nor he received any information regarding disconnection of the alleged electricity connection from the OP in any manner. All the facts mentioned above clearly goes to prove that the OP has been harassing and humiliating the complainant and by adopting the unfair trade practice by consistently issuing the bills qua the alleged electricity connection without providing the electricity connection to the premises of the complainant. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the bill in question has been sent to the complainant is actual consumption electricity units and no extra amount has been charged from him and as such the complainant filed the false complaint. It is further pleaded that the LTS-NDS connection account no.5052684240 was running in the name of complainant with sanctioned load 6KW. Further, it is submitted that consumer/complainant is quite irregular in making payment of the electricity bills issued to consumer. The consumer made the payments Rs.330/- only on 16.04.2018 and Rs.12200/- only on 16.04.2018 out of total bill amount Rs.18700/- only of bill dated 16.04.2018 and stopped to make payments since bill dated 11.04.2019. It is further pleaded that due to default of payments since 11.04.2019, the connection of the consumer was permanently disconnected vide PDCO no.36/2016 dated 24.05.2022, effected on 20.06.2022. The complainant also made the payment of Rs.86506/- only on 28.10.2022 after discontented the connection on 20.06.2022, after PDCO the particular and meter reading was updated and the account of consumer was updated and overhauled and found total amount Rs.589336/-only adjustable, vide sundry no.25/329 dated 13.10.2022 and sent to back office, which was approved on 07.11.2022 by back office, Panchkula. The complainant failed to deposit the said bill. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of electricity bill dated 01.07.2022 Ex.C1, copy of whatsapp message Ex.C2, copies of applications dated 30.04.2019, 27.08.2019, 26.11.2019, 16.09.2020, 17.10.2022 Ex.C3 to Ex.C7, copy of aadhar card of complainant Ex.C8 and closed the evidence on 03.04.2023 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Vinay Kumar, AEE Ex.RW1/A, copy of SVR report Ex.OP1, copy of Permanent/Temporary disconnection order dated 24.05.2022 Ex.OP2, copy of verification report dated 24.05.2022 Ex.OP3, copy of account statement Ex.OP4, copy of Activity Information Ex.OP5, copies of electricity bills Ex.OP6 to Ex.OP14 and closed the evidence on 24.07.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that the complainant applied for a new electricity connection for his building situated at Mangal Pur Colony, Karnal, Tehsil and District Karnal. Complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.19214/- with the OP as the security amount. After depositing the security amount, OP started to issue the electricity bill without issuing the electricity connection.  The complainant approached and requested the OP many times for issuing the electricity connection but OP did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. On the assurance of the XEN concerned, complainant deposited Rs.86506/- but OP did not recover the connection and demanded the huge bill amount, which is totally illegal and unjustified and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the bill has been sent to the complainant as per actual consumption. The LTS-NDS connection was running in the name of complainant with sanctioned load 6KW. The complainant is irregular in making payment of the electricity bills. He further argued that complainant building where the electricity connection installed is commercial and complainant also applied for non-domestic connection, thus this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Before going into the merits of the case, firstly we decide whether the complainant falls within the definition of “consumer” as per Consumer Protection Act, 2019 or not?

 11.          The definition of Consumer as defined in Section 2 (7) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which is reproduced as under:-

(7)    Consumer means any person who:-

i)      buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

ii)        hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are available of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.

12.            As per the aforesaid provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, it is clear that “Commercial Purpose” does not include services availed exclusively for the purposes of earning livelihood by means of self-employment. However, in the present complaint, complainant himself submits that he wants to rent out the building in question. The connection in question is also non-domestic connection.

13.           In the entire pleading, complainant has not alleged that the building where the electricity connection installed is only earning his livelihood by means of self employment. Neither in the whole complaint nor in evidence, complainant has alleged that he has no other source of income except the earning from the alleged building. Rather, OP has alleged that building where the connection has installed is to be used for commercial purpose and the complainant  also applied for non-domestic connection. Hence, it has been proved on record that the building where the connection was applied used for commercial purpose and not for earning his livelihood by means of self employment and thus in view of section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. In this regard, we place reliance on the CC no.1489/2018 titled as M/s S.B.A. Services Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. and Another, decided on 10.04.2023 and Engineering Works Vs. P.S. B. Industrial Institute reported as AIR 1995 SC 1428 where in the Apex Court observed:

“The explanation however clarifies that in certain situations, purchase of goods for "commercial purpose" would not yet take the purchaser out of the definition of expression "consumer". If the commercial use is by the purchaser himself for the purpose of earing his livelihood by means of self-employment, such purchaser of goods is yet a "consumer". In the illustration given above, if the purchaser himself works on typewriter or plies the car as a taxi himself, he does not cease to be a consumer. In other words, if the buyer of goods uses them himself, i.e., by self- employment, for earning his livelihood, it would not be treated as a "commercial purpose" and he does not cease to be a consumer for the purposes of the Act. The explanation reduces the question, what is a "commercial purpose", to a question of fact to be decided in the facts of each case. It is not the value of the goods that matters but the purpose to which the goods bought are put to"

 The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed :

"We are also of the opinion that the definition of the expression "person" in Section 2(39) as including a firm (whether registered or not), a Hindu undivided family, a co-operative society or any other association of persons (whether registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or not) makes no difference to the above interpretation. If a firm purchases the goods, the members of the firm should themselves ply, operate or use the goods purchased. Same would be the case of purchase by Hindu Undivided Family, cooperative society or any other association of persons."

14.           While explaining the term 'commercial purpose' in context of goods, Hon'ble Apex Court stated that it is a question of fact that is to be decided on the basis of the facts and circumstances of each case. Thus, for the determination of commercial purpose, each and every transaction relating to a particular case alleging deficiency shall be examined by viewing its direct effect on the profitability of a complainant.

15.           Keeping in view the ratio of the law laid down in the abovesaid judgments and facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that the complainant has applied for electricity connection for commercial purpose and thus, complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer as prescribed under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

16.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to file fresh complaint on the same cause of action before the competent court of law, if so desired. In view of the law laid down Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Versus PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583 the complainant would be at liberty to get the benefit of provisions of Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act, to exclude the period spent in prosecuting the present complaint before this Commission while computing the period of limitation prescribed for filing such complaint. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated: 16.10.2024   

                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Neeru Agarwal)         (Sarvjeet Kaur)

                   Member                          Member