Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/678/2013

Lakshmi Industries - Complainant(s)

Versus

U.H.B.V.N - Opp.Party(s)

V.K.Rajouria

30 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                         Complaint No. 678  of 2013.

                                                                                         Date of institution: 17.09.2013.

                                                                                         Date of decision: 30.05.2016.

 

Laxmi Industries, Workshop Road, Yamuna Nagar through its partner Shri Surender Vasudeva aged about 70 years son of Shri Madan Lal Vasudeva resident of H. No. 109, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar..

                                                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. Chairman, UHBVNL, Sector 6 Shakti Bhawan Panchkula.
2. Executive Engineer, UHBVNL, Sub Division Office, Saharanpur Road, Yamuna Nagar.
3. Assistant Executive Engineer, UHBVNL, Sub Division, I.T.I. Yamuna Nagar.

 

                                                                                                                                                                       …Respondents

BEFORE:         SH. A.K.GARG PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. V.K.Rajoria, Advocate, counsel for complainant.     

              Sh. D.S.Kamboj, Advocate, counsel for respondents.

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Firm Lakshmi Industries has filed the present complaint being “Consumer” under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 praying therein that the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to correct their statement of account to add Rs. 8000/- and Rs. 17340/- totaling in all Rs. 25340/- in the security a/c of complainant alongwith interest and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant firm, are that complainant firm i.e. Lakshmi Industries, Workshop Road, Yamuna Nagar through its partner Sh. Surender Vasudeva was having an electricity connection bearing account No. KLS-1 which was later on converted from KLS-1 to Y46250122500F. As per requirement of the OPs, the complainant firm had deposited security regarding the electricity consumption. Accordingly, as per instructions of the OPs on 25.12.1995 total amount of Rs. 25,800/- was deposited with the ops previously known as HSEB. Out of this amount, Rs. 8000/- was deposited with the bill amounting to Rs. 20804/- and amount of Rs. 17340/- was deposited on 25.01.1996 with the bill of total amount of Rs. 35007/-. Thus in 1995-96 total security amount was deposited Rs. 25,340/-. Even, after that complainant had deposited the security amount as per instructions and demand of the OPs. On enquiry the complainant came to know that OPs have not shown the amount of Rs. 8000/- and Rs. 17340/- deposited by the complainant as security in the year 1995-96. The complainant various times requested to the OPs to correct their calculated amount which has been deposited by the complainant but the OPs are adamant and did not pay any heed to his request. A letter dated 6.6.2012 was also written by the complainant but despite that no useful purpose has been done by the OPs. Hence, this complaint. 

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, complainant does not fall within the ambit of Consumer, as the complainant is a commercial unit and is availing the electricity facility for commercial purpose, so, the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer defined under C.P.Act; no cause of action arose to file the present complaint, as an amount of Rs. 49764/- is outstanding as security amount towards the complainant as per sale circular No. U-43-2006 and the complainant is bound to make the payment. As such, the complaint is false and liable to be dismissed. On merit reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Surender Vasudeva as Annexure CX and documents such as Photo copy of electricity bill for the month of July 2013 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of letter dated 18.07.2012 as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of letter dated 22.02.1995 as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of ledger 1995-96 as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of letter dated 27.12.2013 as Annexure C-5, Photo copy of rough list of amount deposited as security as Annexure C-6, Photo copy of ledger as Annexure C-7 to C-11 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence attested copy of account of security amount of Lakshmi Industries as Annexure R-1, attested copy of consumption data record as Anenxure R-2, Photo copy of circular No.U-43/2006 as Annexure R-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

7                      Learned counsel for the complainant hotly argued that an amount of Rs. 8000/- and Rs. 17340/- has not been added in the security account of the complainant which is evident from Annexure C-4 despite so many requests and applications Annexures C-2 and C-3.

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs argued at length that the complaitn of the complainant is not maintainable firstly on the ground that the present complaint has been filed by Firm i.e. M/s Lakshmi Industries which is a commercial unit and is availing the electricity facility for commercial purpose. Further learned counsel for the OPs argued that disputed amount is related to the year of 1995-96 but the present complaint has been filed in the year September 2013. Moreover, matter in dispute is related to the amount for the last 15-20 years, so, it cannot be decided in a summary nature. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9.                     So, prior to considering the case on merits, it is necessary to decide the matter on the point “Whether the complainant falls within the ambit of Consumer as has been narrated in the Consumer Protection Act or not? On this point counsel for the OPs vehemently argued that the complainant is having an electricity connection for commercial purposes purely and thus he is not covered in the definition of consumer as enshrined in Consumer Protection Act which reads as under:

Section 2(d):-

                        (i)         buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid any partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

                        (ii)        [ hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [ but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose]

                        [ Explanation- For the purposes of this clause, “ commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self- employment]”            

10.                   To further strengthen his stand, counsel for the OPs has drawn the attention of this Forum towards the case law delivered by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Mohammad Haseeb Ahmad Versus Maharashtra State Electricity Board and others 2010 CTJ 886 (CP) NCDRC whereby the Hon’ble National Commission dismissed the complaint of the complainant holding him not to be a “Consumer” as the electric connection was taken for stone crusher. 

11.                   In view of the facts narrated above, we are of the considered view that the electricity connection obtained from the OPs is purely for commercial purposes and thus complainant is not covered under the definition of the consumer as enshrined in the Consumer Protection Act. Further the case law (supra) tendered by the counsel for the OPs is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the present complaint cannot be termed as a consumer dispute and hence the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer.

12.                   Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the complainant is granted liberty to approach the appropriate Court/Forum, if he so desires. Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Luxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995)III SCC page 583. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced:30.05.2016.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                     PRESIDENT,

 

                                                                                                           

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.