J U D G E M E N T

Smt. Krishna Poddar, Ld. President.

          The facts of the complaint case in brief are that the complainant is a consumer under the WBSEDCL vide its Consumer ID No.412015950 and the said electric connection (commercial line) was enjoying by the complainant since long at her business place i.e., at Ganga Hotel and Restaurant, situated at Hill Cart Road, Pradhan Nagar, Siliguri and the complainant has paid the electric bills to the OP regularly.  In the month of April, 2014 the electric bill was to the tune of Rs.5,047/-, in May it was Rs.5,150/- and in June the electric bill was Rs.5,150/-.  But suddenly from the month of July, August and September, 2014 the electric bill was abnormally increased to the tune of Rs.42,750/- per month and the said excessive bill amount was shown due to defective electric meter installed in the Hotel & Restaurant of the complainant.  On receipt the bills the

Contd…..P/2

-:2:-

complainant was astonished to see the amount and complainant has made part payment of the bill amount of Rs.25,778/- on 20.10.2014.  As per requesting letter dated 15.10.2014 of the complainant the OP authority was pleased to pass an order for payment of bill amount in instalments.   On several times the electricity authority inspected the defective metre installed in the hotel premises and as per request of the complainant the electricity authority revised the subsequent bills following the old electric bills but denied to change the defective meter and to revise the above mentioned huge amount of three bills caused to defective meter.   Hence this case. 

The OP Nos.1& 2 entered appearance and contested the case by filing a written version wherein the material averments made in the complaint have been denied and it has been contended inter-alia that the instant case is not maintainable.  It has been contended by the OPs that the complainant does not cover the definition of ‘Consumer’ under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The power supply in the business premises under the name and style of ‘Ganga Hotel & Restaurant cum Bar’ of the complainant is commercial category to run the business and not for earning livelihood of the complainant by means of self employment, and as such power service connection in the name of the complainant is purely commercial purpose and transaction was for commercial purpose and the complainant being a commercial consumer, this complaint under the Consumer Protection Act is not maintainable.  The power supply connection in the premises of the ‘Ganga Hotel & Restaurant cum Bar’ being Consumer ID No.412015950 in the name of the complainant is in commercial category and separate Forum for Redressal of individual consumer’s grievance has been created under Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the complainant instead of applying before the appropriate Forum which is formed under Indian Electricity Act, 2003 filed this complaint before this Forum which is against the mandatory provision of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and as such not maintainable.

It has been further stated by the OP that there is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and as such the complainant is not entitled to get relief as prayed for.    

To prove the case, the complainant has filed the following documents:-

1.       Bill for 2013 – Annexure 1..

2.       Bill for 2014 Annexure – 4,6 & 7. 

Contd…..P/3

-:3:-

3.       Bill for 2015 Annexure - 10. 

4.       Bill for 2016 upto date Annexure - 11.

5.       Information Burnt Meter Annexure – 2.

6.       Prayer for check the meter of Excess bill Annexure – 3.

7.       Making payment of instalment Annexure – 8.

8.       Prayer for check the meter Annexure-9.

9.       Yellow paper defect meter Annexure-12.

OP has filed the following documents :-

1.       1 (One) Decision of the NCDRC (National Commission) regarding definition of Consumer of ‘Commercial Purpose’.

2.       Meter Testing Billing Report of L & T Ltd. done at Zonal Testing Laboratory.

3.       Xerox copy of the Meter Card regarding Test Meter in parallel Circuit (two).

4.       New meter installation report dated 27.11.2014.    

          Complainant has filed examination-in-chief supported by affidavit.

OP has filed examination-in-chief.

Points for determination

1.       Whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Section

2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ?

2.       Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs ?

2.       Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

Decision with reason

Issue No.1

The complainant has filed the instant case claiming that he is a consumer under the OP W.B.S.E.D.C.L. vide Consumer ID No.412015950 and the said electric connection (commercial line) was enjoying by the complainant since long at her business place i.e., ‘Ganga Hotel & Restaurant’ situated at Hill Cart Road, Pradhan Nagar, Siliguri.  The further case of the complainant is that the bill amount for consumption of electricity in the said hotel and restaurant for the month of April, May and June, 2014 was Rs.5,047/-, Rs.5,150/- and Rs.5,150/- respectively.  But the bill amount for July, August and September, 2014 was to the tune of Rs.42,750/- per month and the said electric bill amount was abnormally increased due to defective electric meter installed by the OP in the

Contd…..P/4

-:4:-

hotel premises of the complainant.  The electricity authority on several times inspected the defective meter as per request of the complainant and revised the subsequent bills but denied to change the defective meter and to revise the above mentioned three bills showing huge amount which was caused due to defective meter installed in the hotel and restaurant of the complainant and the complainant has got no option but to file this case for proper redress. 

The ld advocate of the OP during his course of argument has submitted that the instant case is not maintainable.  It has been contended by the ld advocate that the instant complaint of the complainant does not come within the definition of consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The power service connection in the business premises of the complainant under the name and style of ‘Ganga Hotel & Restaurant cum Bar’ is commercial category and not for earning the livelihood of the complainant by means of self employment.  The power service connection in the name of the complainant is purely commercial purpose and the complainant being a commercial consumer this complaint under the Consumer Protection Act is not maintainable. 

In the instant case the complainant has not stated that he has taken the electric connection for running her hotel & restaurant cum bar for the purpose of earning her livelihood by means of self employment  No evidence had been led by the complainant in this regard before this Forum.  There is no hesitation to hold that a hotel cum restaurant cum bar cannot be run without taking assistance of other employees.  Complainant must engage several employees to run the hotel business.  So, it cannot be held by any stretch of imagination that the complainant is earning her livelihood by means of self employment.  Moreover, it appears from the written version as well as evidence of OP W.B.S.E.D.C.L. that they supplied the power service connection in the name of the complainant for running his hotel business which is purely commercial purpose and the complainant is a commercial consumer under the OP W.B.S.E.D.C.L. and the power supply connection in the premises of Ganga Hotel & Restaurant cum Bar being Consumer ID No.412015950 in the name of complainant is in commercial in category.  So, it is clear that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The complainant is running the Ganga Hotel & Restaurant cum Bar and the electric connection is installed in the Hotel premises.  The Hotel &

Contd…..P/5

-:5:-

Restaurant cum Bar is run by the complainant for generating profits which clearly means that the Hotel was run by the complainant for commercial purpose.  From that angle also the complainant is not the consumer by hiring the services of the OP for commercial purpose.     

This issue is accordingly decided against the complainant.

When it is held that complainant is not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, so, this Forum is of the view that Issue Nos.2 & 3 are not required to be discussed.                         

In the result, the case fails.        

Hence, it is

                     O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.162/S/2014 is dismissed on contest against the OPs without cost.

Let copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.

                     -Member-                                        -President-