BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PRESENT SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No. 342/2003 Filed on 25.08.2003 Dated : 30.01.2010 Complainant: S. Ajith Kumar, Electrical Connection No. 11722 (Pettah), Advocate, High Court, K.K.V. Towers, 43/375 D, Paul Abro Road, Semitheri Junction, Near North Railway Station, Kochi.
(By adv. A.J. Ahamed Kabeer) Opposite parties:
Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board, Electrical Sub Division, Beach, Chakkai, Thiruvananthapuram-26. Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. G. Gopidas)
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 06.12.2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30.11.2009, the Forum on 30.01.2010 delivered the following:
ORDER SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant, an advocate by profession, is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No. 11722 under Electrical Sub Division, Beach, Chakkai, that though his monthly consumption of electricity is less than 28 units the consumer has been put under commercial tariff and that even after repeated requests opposite parties did not cure the defects in the meter installed in the premises. Even after sending legal notice dated 12.06.2002 opposite party has not converted the tariff from commercial to domestic tariff. Hence this complaint to cancel the electricity bills already issued under commercial category, to direct opposite parties to convert tariff from commercial to domestic category and to return the excess charge levied from the consumer and also to pay compensation to the complainant. Opposite party filed version contending that consumer No. 11722 is under LT non-domestic category with tariff VI B and date of electric connection is 15.11.1996, that complainant is conducting an advocate office in the Amrutha Nilayam building complex and is using electrical energy for about 8 hours in a day and that average consumption comes to about 1 to 1.5 units and energy meter also recorded the same and that opposite party issued electrical bills in accordance with the existing law. As per the agreement, the connected load was 2840 watts. On physical verification at the premises it was 1140 Watts. As per the existing rules only 2000 watts is taking for calculating the fixed charge. Any addition or deletion of connected load was not intimated to the opposite parties so far. As per the existing law the tariff allowed to advocate office is VI B. As per the inspection report made by the subordinate authorized by the 1st opposite party it was found that the meter was working properly and no need for replacement of the electric meter of the premises. There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The points that arise for consideration are:- Whether the legal profession is a commercial activity or not? Whether the complainant is liable to pay tariff under VI B? Whether the complainant is entitled to get cancelled the bills issued from 11.02.2002 onwards? Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation? If so, at what amount?
In support of the claim complainant has filed affidavit and Exts. P1 series to P4 were marked. In rebuttal 1st opposite party has filed affidavit. Points (i) to (v):- Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties vide consumer No. 11722 and tariff levied is under tariff VI B in non-domestic category. It has been the case of the complainant that the complainant is an advocate by profession that the 1st opposite party made manipulations in the tariff on the pretext of Shops and Establishment Act which put the consumer in the category of commercial tariff. Ext. P1 series are bills issued by opposite parties vide bill No. F 771322 dated 11.02.2002 for Rs. 551/-, Bill No. A 240105 dated 08.04.2002 for Rs. 256/-, bill No. E 921862 dated 12.06.2002 for Rs. 571/-, Bill No. F 776232 dated 08.08.2002 for Rs. 509/-, Bill No. G 761382 dated 10.10.2002 for Rs. 522/-, Bill No. H 24 dated 11.12.2002 for Rs. 693/-, Bill No. D 23706 dated 11.02.2003 for Rs. 620/-, Bill No. T 0024 dated 09.04.2003 for Rs. 513/- and Bill No. K. 35821 dated 09.12.2003 for Rs. 542/-. On perusal of Ext. P1 series bills it is seen that complainant is charged under tariff VI B which includes fixed charge and also current charge. Ext. P2 is the interim receipt issued by opposite parties dated 09.05.2002 for Rs. 10/-. Ext. P2 (a) is the copy of the application addressed to the 1st opposite party informing that the advocate office wherein A/C was fitted had been removed from the said office 2 years ago. Now opposite parties are levying electricity charges on the same rate when A/C was installed. Through Ext. P2 (a) complainant has requested the opposite parties to fix charge on the basis of the consumption of electricity. Ext. P3 is the legal notice and acknowledgement cards. Ext. P4 is the electricity bill No. K 35818 dated 09.12.2003 for Rs. 247. In Ext. P4 also the tariff is seen charged under VI B. Here the main grievance of the complainant is that he is entitled to get tariff conversion from commercial to domestic. It is settled position that the practising advocate or lawyer by his legal profession cannot be treated as carrying on commercial activity, irrespective of his chamber or office either established or situated under residential or
in any residential building rented or owned by him either in commercial area or residential colony or in commercial complex and thus is such chamber or office cannot be termed as commercial establishment since the lawyer's profession is not a commercial activity. In this connection it is worthwhile to mention the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MP Electricity Board Vs. Sivanarayan reported in 2005(4) KLT 485 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that legal profession is not a commercial activity. It has been observed that a professional activity must be an activity carried on by an individual by his professional skill and knowledge. There is a fundamental distinction between the professional activity and activity of a commercial character. Even if it is accepted that the user was non domestic it can be non-domestic. But it does not become commercial. The word non-domestic and commercial are not interchangeable. It is further observed that the expression “commerce” or “commercial” necessarily is a concept of trading activity. Trading activity may involve any kind of activity, be it transport or supply goods. Generic term for most aspect is buying and selling. But in legal profession there is no such kind of buying and selling nor any trading of any kind whatsoever. Therefore to compare legal profession with that contract and business is far from correct approach. In view of the above referred settled position we find legal profession is not a commercial activity.
The next point requiring consideration is whether the complainant is liable to pay tariff under VI B. It is argued by opposite parties that opposite parties issued electric bills in accordance with the existing laws, that as per existing law the tariff allowed to advocate office is VI B. It is pertinent to note that LT VI B comes under non-domestic category, whereas LT VII tariff comes under commercial tariff. In the case in hand, opposite parties issued bills on the basis of LT VI B tariff which would come under non-domestic category, thereby we never find any abnormalities in the said bills rather opposite parties have acted in accordance with the existing law. As such we find complainant is liable to pay tariff under LT VI B. In view of the above we find complainant is not entitled to get the bills already issued by the opposite parties cancelled. It is admitted by opposite parties that as per agreement made by consumer at the time of application the connected load was 2840 Watts; on physical examination at the premises it was 1140 Watts. According to opposite parties as per existing rules only 2000 watts is taken for calculating the fixed charge. It is the say of the opposite party that any addition or deletion of connected load was not intimated to the opposite parties so far. It is to be pointed out that complainant never initiated any steps to ascertain the status of the energy meter, nor did complainant intimate any deletion of connected load. Deficiency in service not proved.
In the result, complaint is partly allowed. It is found that lawyer's office cannot be termed as commercial establishment and lawyer's profession is not a commercial activity. Complainant is liable to pay tariff under VI B as per existing Tariff Regulations and Rules. Both parties shall bear and suffer their costs.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30th day of January 2010.
G. SIVAPRASAD, President.
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
jb
O.P. No. 342/2003 APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : NIL II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS : P1 - Electricity Bills P2 - Interim receipt dated 09.05.2002 P3 - Legal notice dated 12.06.2003. P4 - Electricity Bill No. 35818 dated 09.12.2003
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS : NIL IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS : NIL
PRESIDENT
| 
