ORDER

30.10.2023

SH. SANJAY KUMAR, PRESIDENT

1. In brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is the husband of Registered Consumer Smt. Geeta w/o Balkishan of K No. 60018229736. It is stated that the electricity bill of the month of June received of Rs. 1,140/- of 71 units and showing charges of Rs. 510 and rate of Unit Rs. 8.80 per unit which is more than the factory charges. It is stated that on 11.07.2015 a visit was made to office of OP and a complaint No. 2009852362 recorded and officials told that reading would be taken again. Thereafter 3 times reading was taken but bill of month of June was not rectified.
2. It is stated that on 17.07.2015 on inquiry one officer told that there is a “Dairy” at the house of than it was informed that there is only one cow and 70% of the village people having cows and buffellows and neighbours having 10-12 cows and buffellows but they are not getting such a high bill. It is further stated that the copy of the bills of neighbours namely Surinder Kumar having CA No. 60014740173 having two cows and two bufellows, Saroj Devi CA No.     60009453048 having four cows and, Mahinder Singh CA No. 60009427695 having three cows filed on record.
3. It is stated that other villagers having 10 to 15 bufellows but their electyricty bill does not mention dairy farm therefore either dairy farm be added in their electricity bills or remove Dairy farm from complainant’s electricity bill. It is further stated that on 13.08.2015 a complaint was made to head office for correction of bill but electricity bill was not corrected rather a message received that either pay Rs. 1440/- otherwise electricity would be disconnected. Thereafter on 14.08.2015 electricty bill of month of July received along with disconnection notice of 82 units of Rs. 272/- and other bill also added totaling to Rs. 1440/-. It was mentioned in the notice that if bill is not paid till 24.08.2015 otherwise electricity would be disconnected.   It is stated that OP has charges rate in the bill of 100 KW connection such like factory connection Hence present complaint filed seeking removal of word “dairy” from the electricity bill of the complainant and correction of bill as the complainant is having only one cow and not selling the milk. 
4. Notice was issued to OP who appeared and detailed Written Statement. In the WS OP has taken preliminary objections that present complaint is not maintainable as present complaint is not filed by the registered consumer and registered consumer has not been impleaded as party to the present complaint. The electricity connection No. CA 6018229736 stands in the name of Ms. Geeta and in view of Judgment of Hari Prasad Vs. MU.H.B.V.N.L. Panchkula and ors., I (2010) CPJ 104 (NC) present complaint is not maintainable. It is further stated that complainant has not come before this Commission with clean hands and concealed the material facts. There is no deficiency in supply of electricity therefore present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. On merits all the allegations are denied. It is stated that the above stated electricity connection in the name of Ms. Geeta energized on 09.04.2014 at house No. 87 Village Harewali for a sanctioned load of 2 KW for domestic (Cattle / Dairy Farm) purposes. It is further stated that complainant is habitutal defaulter and dint make payments therefore bill dated 06.08.2015 of Rs. 1,448.36 towards 433 consumer units ranging period from 28.06.2015 to 1.08.2015 raised including arrears of Rs. 1,141/- which now amounting to Rs. 2,730/- and same is legal and correct and payable by Ms. Geeta.
6. It is stated that OP had conducted site inspection to ascertain uses of electricity connection on 09.06.2014 wherein it was discovered that the connection has been used to run cattle / dairy farm henceforth in the next bill category was added as “cattle and diary farm” instead of domestic. It is further stated that the change of category head does not burden the consumer pocket as there is no difference in the rate till 400 units consumption per month which is charges as domestic tariff. The report dated 09.09.2014 and summary report filed on the record. It is stated that the electricity bills are legal lawful and payable by registered consumers and there is no deficiency in services. It is stated that present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
7. Complainant filed detailed rejoinder to the written statement of the OP and denied all allegations made therein and reiterated contents of the complaint. In addition it is stated that complainant is a rightful owner of the house and is a beneficiary consumer as per the Consumer Protection. It is further state that the Karta of the Family and bread earner of his family and not a stranger to the present complaint case. It is stated that Ms. Geeta is the wife of complainant and she authorized and she authorized complainant to file the present complaint against illegal acts / overcharging of the electrify on the allegation of running dairy farm. The complainant is ready to file power of attorney as Annexure C1. It is stated that the cause of actions exists in favour of complainant.
8. It is stated that complainant has been using electricity connection since 09.07.2014 but suddenly received a false bill dated 06.08.2015. It is further stated that prior to it electricity bill of the period 23.05.2015 to 27.06.2015 of Rs. 1,134.38 of 71 units, electricity bill of the period 27.06.2015 to 01.08.2015 of Rs. 436.45 of 82 units     and electricity bill of the period 01.08.2015 to 06.09.2015 of Rs. 1,453.31 of 99 units which clearly like a clear mirror image that OP raised false impugned bill.
9. It is stated that It is essential to mention meaning of word “Dairy Farm” as defined in dictionaries.

The ordinary dictionary meaning of ‘dairy’ as found in concise oxford dictionary is, “Room or building for keeping milk and cream and making butter etc. The milk department is farming; shop for milk etc., cows of a farm”.

In Stroud’s judicial dictionary IV Edition it is stated that a ‘Dairyman’ includes any cowkeeper, purveyor of milk or occupier of a dairy. In the Reader’s Digest Great Encyclopedia Dictionary. Volume I, the meaning of ‘Dairy’ is given as the same in the Concise Oxford Dictionary. The meaning of a ‘dairy farm’ is given as “farm producing chiefly milk, butter etc, .

It is further stated that ‘dairying’ is the occupation or business of dairy – farmer or dairyman. It has been held to be included in agriculture. In the broad use of that term. In Halsbury’s Laws of England. Third Edition, Volume. 17, it was mentioned as follows at page 530;

“A dairy farm is any premises (being a dairy) on which milk is produced from cows, but does not include any part of any such premises on which milk is manufactured into other products , unless the milk the produced on the premises forms a substantial part of the milk so manufactured …. A dairy farmer is a dairyman who produces milk from cows”. 

10. It is stated that sum unknown person visited the house of the complainant on June 2014 and at that time complainant was not present. The wife of complainant asked to prove their identity but they refused than she asked for wait for half an hour as complainant is coming but they told they will not wait for anybody . It is further stated that wife of complainant told them that they couldn’t inspect the site in the absence of her husband but they illegally inspected and prepared a false report mentioning dairy farm in the electricity bill. The wife of complainant asked for copy of the inspection report but they didn’t handover the same to her. It is stated that the report dated 09.09.2014 is false and fabricated as the complainant is having only owe cow and not selling milk or running dairy farm.
11. It is stated that complainant never defaulted in payment of regular monthly bills and impugned bill is illegal wrong and same may be withdrawn. It is stated that present complaint is maintainable.
12. Complainant filed evidence by way of his affidavit and reiterated the contents of the complaint.
13. OP filed evidence by way of Affidavit of Sh. Ashish Bhatnagar Senior Manager and relied upon SVR Report dated 09.09.2014 and K No. Summary Ex. DW1/1 and reiterated the contents of the Written Statement.  
14. The complainant and OP both filed Written Arguments. 
15. We have heard Complainant in person and Sh. Harish Purohit AR of OP and perused the record.
16. The complainant admitted that CA No. 60018229736 is in the name of Ms. Geeta who is the wife of the complainant. Therefore registered consumer is Ms. Geeta who is the wife of the complainant. The photocopy of the electricity bills filed on the record further establishes that Ms. Geeta who is the wife of the complainant is the registered consumer. In order to meet the objection of locus standi complainant has taken the plea that he is the Karta of the family and beneficiary therefore has locus standi to file the present complaint. The complainant also reproduced the definition of Consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We have gone through the definition. Complainant neither hires or avail any services of OP. It is pertinent to mention here that the OP supplied electricity on the basis of application filed for connection in the name of Ms. Geeta who is the wife of the complainant and a contract also entered by Ms. Geeta therefore complainant Balkishan is not covered within the definition of the Consumer. Later on complainant attempted to plug this loope hole by filing power of attorney dated 05.04.2016 but it cannot cure the legal lacunae as complaint was filed on 22.08.2015. We are of the considered opinion that complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. Therefore complaint is liable to be dismissed.     
17. It is pertinent to mention here that complainant has taken the plea he has only one cow and not running any dairy farm or selling milk however as per record he concealed the material facts that OP officials conducted the inspection and prepared a detailed report dated 09.09.2014. It is admitted by the complainant that at the time of inspection registered consumer Ms. Geeta was present. It is also not out of place to mention that the application for new connection dated June 2014 and energization report July 2015 specially mention rate category “cattle’s / dairy farm. It clearly mention that electricity connection in the name of Ms. Geeta is of the category of Cattles / Dairy Farm. These vital facts were concealed by the complainant. 
18. Therefore we do not find any deficiency of service and illegality in the impugned electricity bill challenged before us. The complaint is devoid of merit therefore dismissed. No order as to costs.  

19. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry.

Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on   30.10.2023.

SANJAY KUMAR                      NIPUR CHANDNA                     RAJESH            

PRESIDENT                                      MEMBER                            MEMBER