Date of Filing: 28-03-2016 Date of Final Order: 28-12-2017
Sri Asish Kumar Senapati, President
This is a complaint U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The sum and substance of the complaint may be described as follows :-
One Upen Paul (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) has filed the complaint against the Station Manager, Khagrabari Group Electric Supply, W.B.S.E.D.C.L and the Divisional Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L., S.S. Road, Cooch Behar (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps) alleging deficiency in service.
According to the Complainant, he was a bonafide consumer of the O.Ps and he used to enjoy electricity (commercial) being Service Connection No.1933840 for running his business due to maintain his livelihood. The electric meter of the Complainant was stopped from 06/01/2009 to 14/04/2009 as per record of the meter reading card and the O.Ps did not respond to the complaint of the Complainant for change of the defective meter. That on 02/11/2010, the Complainant submitted a written complaint to the O.P. No.1 requesting him to install a new meter in lieu of the defective meter. The O.Ps did not replace the old meter but the old meter was running automatically. Afterwards, the Complainant was paying electric bills regularly on the basis of consumption. That subsequently, the Complainant received two bills in February, 2013 for the months of December, 2012 and February, 2013 from the O.P. No.1 amounting to Rs.10,905/- and outstanding Rs.11,184/- for the months of October, 2012 - January, 2013 respectively. The Complainant was astonished and requested the O.P. No.1 for disconnection of his electric connection. Thereafter, the Complainant went to the office of the O.Ps on 13/02/2013 and lodged a written complaint. The O.P. No.1 asked the Complainant to make payment to avoid disconnection. On 19/07/2013 the Complainant received one notice which reveals that total outstanding amount was Rs.12,520/-. The O.Ps disconnected the electric connection of the Complainant without giving any opportunity to the Complainant. That finding no other alternative, the Complainant submitted application before the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Cooch Behar on 28/02/2013 and received the mediation report on 17/03/2016.
Hence, the complaint has been filed praying for reliefs.
The O.P. No.1 contested the case by filing W/V on 01/12/2016.
The O.P. No.2 did not contest the case in spite of service of notice.
According to the W/V filed by the O.P. No.1, the case is not maintainable as it is barred by Section 24 A of the C.P. Act, 1986. That the Complainant, being a consumer of electricity for commercial purpose, is not a consumer within the meaning of consumer as defined U/S 2(I)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986. It has been asserted that on 06/01/2009 the meter reader recorded 00329 units and on 10/04/2009 the reading was same as the meter was stopped. The Complainant applied for change of the meter but it could not be changed due to non-availability of new meter. On 09/07/2009 the meter reader recorded 456 units and the meter was functioning properly. The O.P. No.1 prepared the bills for the month of November, 2012 to January, 2013 claiming 1405 units as estimated/adjustment unit on the basis of computer data base system taking consumption for the period from 24/07/2010 to 01/10/2010.
On 18/10/2012 the O.P. No.1 found meter reading as 2234 units and on 21/07/2013 meter reading was 2234 units. After analyzing present and past meter reading, the computer software took the base period to prepare the bill. There was no dispute in the bills from 07/10/2011 to July, 2012 and the Complainant applied for disconnection on 31/12/2012. That on 19/07/2013 one system generated demand notice was sent to the Complainant and the line was disconnected on 12/08/2013. The O.P re-generated the bill after giving slab benefits but the Complainant did not pay the bills. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
The O.P. No.1 prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
On the basis of above versions, the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer as per provision under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service, as alleged by the Complainant?
- Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief/reliefs, as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No.1.
The Ld. Agent for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as he used to enjoy electricity for running his business due to maintain his livelihood.
In reply, the Ld. Agent for the O.P. No.1 submits that the Complainant is not a consumer as he used electricity for commercial purpose.
Perused the Written Complaint, W/V, Evidence and documents submitted by both parties.
Admittedly, the Complainant was a consumer of electricity for commercial purpose. It is asserted in para 4 of the complaint that the Complainant had enjoyed (commercial) electric power in his own business premises to run his business due to maintain his livelihood.
The definition of consumer as per Section 2(I)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986 does not include a person who avails of services for any commercial purpose. For the purpose of this clause “Commercial purpose” does not include services availed by him/her exclusively for the purpose of earning his/her livelihood by means of self-employment.
In the present case, the Complainant has asserted that he hired the services of electricity from the O.Ps to maintain his livelihood. Merely, using electricity for earning livelihood in a commercial business does not mean that it is not for commercial purpose. Self-employment connotes altogether a different concept, namely, the person hiring the services alone uses it by means of self-employment.
In the present case, the Complainant has not even stated anywhere in his complaint that services of electricity (commercial) availed by him were used exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.
Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant is not a consumer as defined U/S 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Point Nos.2, 3 & 4.
We have already held that the Complainant is not a consumer as defined U/S 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986. In the Circumstance, we find no justification to go into the merit of this Case.
We hold that the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case as the Complainant is not a consumer as defined U/S 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Point Nos.2, 3 & 4 are thus disposed of.
In the result, the complaint case fails.
Fees paid are correct.
Hence,
It is Ordered,
That the complaint case be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the O.P. No.1 without cost and dismissed ex-parte against the O.P. No.2 without cost.
Let plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Post forthwith, free of cost for information & necessary action. The copy of the Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
