Orissa

Debagarh

CC/12/2021

Swami Paramanada Industrial Training Centre, A Unit of Viswa SebaSangha Trust - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Executive Engineer Electrical, Deogarh Electrical Division, WESCO Utility - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. T.K. Dash

06 Nov 2021

ORDER

IN THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DEOGARH.

C.C NO- 12/2021

Present-Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Arati Das, Member.

Swami Premananda Industrial Training Institute,

(A Unit of Viswa Seva Sangha),

At- Rameswar Vihar, Nuapada, P.O- Aunli,

Through it’s ATO Electrical.                                                                       ……Complainant

             Vrs.

1.      The Executive Engineer, Electrical,

          Deogarh Electrical Division, WESCO Utility,

          At/P.O/P.S-Deogarh.

 

2.       The Sub-Divisional Officer(Commerce)

Deogarh Electrical Sub-Division, Deogarh,

WESCO UTILITY,P.O/P.S/Dist- Deogarh.                                  ……O.Ps.

COUNSELS:-

For the Complainant:- Sri T.K Dash, Advocate.

For the O.P-1 & 2:- Sri D.K. Guru & Associates, Advocate.

 

DATE OF HEARING : 05.11.2021, DATE OF ORDER : 06.11.2021

SRI DIPAK KUMAR MAHAPATRA,PRESIDENT:- Brief facts of the case is that,  the Complainant is running  an educational Institution  in the name of Swami Premananda Training Centre  at Rameswar Vihar Nuapada in the district of Deogarh to impart technical education to the poor students in the districts since 2007. Initially the said institute was supplied with 30 KW load   vide consumer no- 4140-0112-0013 having it’s own transformer for power supply till 2010. Thereafter on application of the Complainant, the O.Ps took over the maintenance of the Transformer in the month of February 2020.  The O.Ps has fixed the demand charges at Rs. 50/- per KW and bill were being served to the Complainant accordingly.  But the fixed charges was raised to Rs. 8250/- in the month of April- 2013. Thereafter the Complainant opted for a load of 20 KW instead of 30 KW and a representation was made to the O.Ps along with a deposit Rs. 1,000/- towards processing fees along with test report from the license contractor, meter reading of previous three months,  and a letter of approval of Electrical Inspector and the Complainant has submitted accordingly.  By the permission of the Superintendent Engineer Electrical Circle, Sambalpur, WESCO utilities the load was reduced to 20KW and it was confirmed and communicated on dtd. 18.01.2017 tariff was applicable in SPP Category. But still the bill are being generated on 30 KW load. Due to this arbitrary calculation a huge amount of arrear was generated amounting to Rs. 1,08,332/- and issued disconnection notice on dtd. 06.11.2020 to the Complainant. Thereafter the Complainant has made payment of Rs.50,000/- on dtd. 31.12.2020 vide serial no-2853. On dtd.12.01.2021 again the O.Ps served the Complainant a demand notice to pay the arrear of Rs.65,221/- as on dtd.30.01.2021 failing which the power supply will be disconnected. With an apprehension the Complainant filed the Complaint petition with a prayer for issuance of an Interim Order with a direction to the O.Ps not to disconnect the Power supply to his premises on non-payment of arrear dues. An order was issued accordingly by this Commission on dtd. 12.03.2021 with a direction to the O.Ps not to disconnect the Power supply to the house of the Complainant till the disposal of this case. The O.Ps prayed to vacate the order and thereafter challenged the order and filed an Appeal in the Hon’ble State Commission, Cuttack.  Hon’ble State Commission considering the petition vide R.P No-61/2021 pleased to pass an order directing the District Commission, Deogarh to consider the objection filed by the O.Ps and hear both the parties and pass  a speaking order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Direction has also been given to the petitioners to appear before the District Commission on dtd. 28.07.2021 to receive further instruction and accordingly date for hearing was fixed.

         As per the O.Ps, the interim order passed by this Commission on dtd.06.05.2021 was not in the knowledge of the O.Ps.  As soon as the Complainant filed the petition for Interim Order the Complainant should serve a copy of the petition to the O.Ps and the Commission should have communicate a copy of the same.  As sufficient opportunity has not been given to the O.Ps hence they are prejudiced. As the process is illegal the Interim Order may be considered as void. Again the Complainant is running an educational institution it may be considered as a Commercial purpose, hence it does not comes under the purview of consumer as per the C.P act-2019.  The Complainant is not enjoying and using the Power supply for domestic use but he is earning profit by using the electricity in his institution which is not for charity.  Hence the petition may be dismissed.  Again he prayed that 60% of the arrear amount shall be deposited to resume the Power Supply to the house of the Complainant.  

POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-

1. Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act-2019?
2. Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?

          From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the Complainant comes under the purview of Consumers as he has availed electric connection to his Training Institute on payment of consideration and used to pay electric bill regularly.  Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act defines who is a consumer. A person must hire or purchase any good or service for consideration which has been paid in full or in part. So, it can be said that to become a ‘consumer’ under this Act:

• The purchased good should not be used for reselling or any other commercial purposes.
• In addition to this, any beneficiary of such purchased goods or hired services will also be deemed to be a ‘consumer’ under this act.

              We have gone through some Important Judicial Interpretations viz. in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G Industrial Institute, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that whether goods bought by a person are for a ‘commercial purpose’ is a question of fact and it should be decided by taking into account all the facts and circumstances in each case. The Supreme Court further observed that if the goods have been used by the purchaser himself for commercial use then he would be considered to be a consumer under this Act but if that person does not use the good himself and engages some other person to operate that particular good then such person will not come under the ambit of the definition of ‘consumer’.

            Similarly in the matter of Dr. Vijay Prakash Goyal vs. The Network Ltd.  decided on 11th August 2005 by the National Commission, Delhi where it is held that if a machine develops defect within warranty period the purchaser of the machine would be consumer even if has been purchased for the commercial purpose. Even if a machine is purchased for commercial purposes but the defect in the machine arises within the warranty period then the purchaser of such machine would be a consumer as held. The entire issue of the case was regarding replacement of an ultrasound scanner Model 2i2. Which went out of order after installation and needed to be replaced. Despite the repeated request to the respondent company they did not replace it and contested that the petitioner is not a consumer under the consumer protection Act 1986.

       In this case of C.P Moosa vs. Chowgle Industries Ltd., decided on: 31.05.2001 by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Nelhi it is seen that the appellant bought EPBAX system with warranty and AMC (annual maintenance contract) for his hotel. There was a deficiency of service during the warranty period and AMC period. The National Commission held that the appellant is entitled to compensation as the case falls under Section 2 (1)(d).

           So in the present case the Complainant has availed services from the O.Ps for his educational institute where he imparts education to students comes under the purview of consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act-2019. Again the O.Ps have though reduced the sanction load but they were continued billing on higher side thus causing a great accumulation of arrear thereof which placed an extra burden on the complainant for payment which unjustified.  Hence we conclude that the O.Ps has committed deficiency in service and we order as under:-

ORDER

       The Complaint petition is allowed. The O.Ps are jointly and severally directed to revise the electric bill and issue a fresh bill, making calculation from the date of reduction in sanctioned load of 20 KW  till date after adjusting the excess amount paid by the complainant.  Further the O.Ps are directed to pay Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand) as compensation for mental agony and harassment along with Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) towards cost of litigation to the Complainant. All the above orders are to be carried out within a time period of 60 (Sixty ) days of receiving of this order and the O.Ps are at liberty to collect the outstanding dues after service of revised bill and on completion of the above mentioned time period.

 Order pronounced in the open court today i.e, on 6th day of November 2021 under my hand and seal of this Commission.

Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.

I agree,         

 

MEMBER.                                                                                          PRESIDENT.

                                                     Dictated and Corrected

                                                                   By me.   

 

                                                                 PRESIDENT.