SRI A. K. BHATTACHARYYA

Case of the complainant, in short, is that he is a commercial consumer of OP with ID no. 224037732 and he paid electric bill in respect of his said service connection on 07-04-2014; he received three letters dt. 11-03-2014 from the OP on 24-03-2014 intimating him about dishonour of three nos. cheques which he paid towards payment of electric bills; the OP also directed him to clear all dues by 10-04-2014, otherwise his service connection would be disconnected; complainant also received  another letter dt. 20-03-2014 from the OP asking him to pay bills for the month of March 2014 amounting to Rs. 2,861/- + Rs. 65,602/- i.e. Rs. 68,463/- in total; that after receiving said letters the complainant served lawyer’s notice upon the OP on 27-03-2014 with a request to refrain from disconnecting his service connection as the said charges and bills were disputed; on 07-04-2014 complainant paid Rs. 2,865/- to the OP towards the current consumption bill for the month of March 2014.  However, OP disconnected his service connection on 23-04-2014 causing great inconvenience in running his Motor Cycle service centre, hence the case.

To support his bonafineness, complainant submitted photocopies of Notice dt. 20-03-2014 issued by OP, lawyer’s notice dt. 27-03-2014 which he served upon the OP, meter card, 3 letters dt. 11-03-2014 being issued by the OP, electricity bill etc.

The OP contested the case not only by filing written version, they also filed W/N/A and argued their case through their ld. Lawyer.  In their WV it is stated by the OP that the instant petition is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act since the dispute relates to commercial service connection which is beyond the scope of scrutiny under the said act.  Besides, they disconnected the said line with prior notice over non-clearance of outstanding dues by the complainant.  Therefore, there is no illegality in their action and hence, the instant case is liable to be dismissed with cost. 

In their defense, OP submitted photocopies of legal notice  dt. 16-04-2010 served by the complainant upon them in respect of W.P. No. 6150(W) of 2010 filed before the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta, Notice dt. 20-03-2014 which they served upon the complainant, lawyer’s notice dt. 27-03-2014, meter card, intimation letters dt. 11-03-2014 pertaining to dishonour of cheques being issued by the complainant, bank’s advice in respect of dishonour of the cheques being issued by the complainant etc.

Points for consideration

1. Whether the instant case is maintainable?

2. Whether there is any illegality/deficiency in service over disconnection of service connection of the complainant by OP?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief, as sought for?

   Decisions with reasons

   Point nos. 1,2&3:

   All the above 3 points are taken up collectively for the sake of brevity of discussion.

   It is contended by the ld. Advocate of complainant that the OP illegally demanded by sending letter dt. 11-03-2014 and by other two subsequent letters to the  complainant for payment of huge amount of Rs. 68,463/- towards arrear bills on fictitious ground that those payment for previous electric bills by three cheques dt. 2/10/2008, 11/11/2009 and 19/11/2008 issued by the complainant had been dishonoured and that the OP had also threatened to disconnect the electric line if it was not paid by 10/04/2014, but the OP disconnected the said electric connection on 23/04/2014 which is illegal as according to the provision of sec. 56(2) of the Electricity Act 2003 and under the Regulations of W.B. E. Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations 2004.

   The ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the OP has opposed the argument as advanced on  behalf of the Complainant.  The ld. Advocate for the OP has submitted that the instant case is not maintainable as because the complainant, being a Hero Honda Motor Cycle’s Authorized dealer has become commercial consumer under the OP since 2003 for using electric connection for commercial purpose only for which the complainant is not a consumer under the provisions of C. P. Act.  In this regard a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2013) 8 Supreme Court Cases 491 has been relied upon on behalf of the OP.

   Considered the submission of both sides at length and the material on record produced by the parties.

   Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as also the material on record, we are of the view that the provision u/sec. 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and regulations under the W.B.E.R.C. Regulations 2004(as urged on behalf of the complainant) are not applicable in respect of the present case inasmuch as the demand of OP with regard to recovery of arrear bills amount (outstanding amount) for the year 2008 and 2009 was not become the first dues of such previous bills, but such recovery of arrear bills amount is related to the amounts in respect of dishonoured 3 cheques issued by the complainant in the year 2008 and 2009 in favour of the OP and that the complainant has also failed to produce any document on record to show that the amounts of 3 cheques in question issued by him was encashed/credited in the account of OP from his particular bank’s account for such previous electric bills. 

   Therefore, we are unable to accede to the argument as advanced on behalf of the complainant as to any illegality on the part of the OP for taking step for recovery of such arrear bill amounts from the complainant for the reasons as discussed above.

   In our considered view, therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP for such action.

   Next we come to the point of maintainability of this case as argued on behalf of the OP.

   Admittedly the complainant is a commercial consumer having his customer ID no. 224037732 under the OP, being an authorized dealer of Hero Honda Motor Cycles for using electric connection for commercial purpose in respect of his motor cycle service centre.

   There is no whisper in the petition of complaint that the complainant used/consumed electricity for running his said business for his livelihood by way of self-employment only. It was held in the reported decision (2013) 8 Supreme Court Cases page 491 cited on behalf of the OP that availing service for ‘commercial purpose’   do not fall within meaning of ‘consumer’ in section 2(1)(d) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and cannot be a ‘complainant’ for purpose of filing a ‘complaint’ before Consumer Forum. 

   In the circumstances, as aforesaid, as also in view of the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Apex Court, we find that complainant is not a consumer as defined u/s 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act.  So, having regard to the discussions as made above and on consideration of the entire material on record we feel that the complainant is not entitled to any relief as sought for and as such, the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed.

   All the above three points are, thus, disposed of.

   Hence, it is

   ORDERED

   that the instant C. case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP without any cost.