Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/93/2016

Prithvi Raj S/o Ram Lubhaya - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Rajiv Chawla

26 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                               Complaint No. 93  of 2016.

                                                                                               Date of institution: 21.03.2016

                                                                                               Date of Order: 26.08.2016.

Prithvi Raj Dhingra aged about 60 years s/o Sh. Ram Lubhaya, Proprietor of M/s Sakshi Sweets, Pyara Chowk, Major Neeraj Malik Road, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana, Mobile: 9416541701.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. U.H.B.V.N. C-6, Shakti Bhawan Sector-6, Panchkula, Haryana through its Chairman/M.D.
2. S.D.O. (OP), Sub Division Model Town, UHBVN Tehsil Jagadhri, Yamuna Nagar.
3. X.E.N. (OP) Sub Division Model Town, UHBVN Tehsil Jagadhri, Yamuna Nagar.       

                                                                                                                            …Respondents

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Rajiv Chawla Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

               Sh. Balinder Singh, Advocate, counsel for respondents.      

             

 

ORDER

1                      We are deciding the miscellaneous application filed by the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) on dated 30.06.2016 in which the OPs have requested for dismissal of the complaint.

2.                     Before reaching to the conclusion, it is necessary to mention the brief facts of the complaint as well as reply of the complaint. In the present complaint, the complainant has challenged the electricity bills bearing No. 162604570633 for a period of 16.06.2015 to 16.08.2015 amounting to Rs. 46,424/- for 3584 consumed units and bill bearing No. 162606531753 for the period from 16.08.2015 to 15.12.2015 amounting to Rs. 93,632/-  for 10843 consumed units on the ground that these both the bills have been wrongly issued showing highly excessive consumed units as compared to average reading shown in the previous electricity bills and the same are liable to be quashed.

3.                     On the other hand, it is the version of the OPs is that the complainant is having electricity connection bearing account No. 1626080000 of 19KW and he had consumed 3584 units worth Rs. 30,555/- during the period from 16.06.2015 to 16.08.2015 i.e. in two months and further consumed 10843 units worth Rs. 92,286 during the period from 16.08.2015 to 15.12.2015 in four (4) months and the bills to the complainant has been issued as per actual consumption. It has been further mentioned that electricity connection in question is for NDS/Commercial connection. Further it has been mentioned in para No.3 of the reply of application for dismissal of complaint that the electricity connection in question is installed in the premises of M/s Sakshi Sweets, Pyara Chowk, Yamuna Nagar and is having non domestic/commercial supply with sanctioned load of 19KW. So, the electricity bills have been rightly issued to the complainant and the complaint of the complainant is liable to be out rightly dismissed being without jurisdiction.

4.                     Learned counsel for the OPs referred the case law titled as Mohd. Hasib Versus Maharashtra State Electricity Board and others, 2010 CPJ page 242 National Commission wherein it has been held that Foras has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint regarding NDS/commercial connections.

5.                     Learned counsel for the complainant argued that complainant is using the electricity connection for his livelihood, so, the complainant falls under the definition of consumer and referred the case law titled as Bunga Daniel Babu Versus M/s Sri Vasudeva Constructions & Others, Civil Appeal No. 944 of 2016 decided on 22.07.2016 (S.C.) and also referred the case law titled as Confident Dental Euipments Ltd. Versus Devesh Jain (Dr), II (2009) CPJ page 67 Delhi State Commission.

 6.                    After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable being without jurisdiction. From the perusal of bills dated 16.12.2015 and 06.10.2015 etc. placed on file by the complainant, it is duly evident that electricity connection in question is for commercial purpose as in the column of tariff category NDS has been mentioned. Further, the sanctioned load of 19 KW has been shown as the OPs have specifically taken the plea in their reply as well as application for dismissal of the complaint filed on 30.06.2016 that complainant is using the electricity connection bearing account No. 1626080000 for commercial purpose as the complainant is running a big sweet house under the name and style of M/s Sakshi Sweets, Pyara Chowk, Yamuna Nagar. This fact has also been admitted by the complainant in para No.4 of the reply to the application filed on 22.07.2016 mentioning therein that “ The non domestic connection of 19 KW has been taken by the complainant for Air Conditioners and Refrigerator which are installed in the shop to protect the sweets and other items in the shop”. Further we have also minutely perused the contents of the complaint filed by the complainant wherein not a single word has been mentioned by the complainant that he is using the electricity connection in question for his livelihood.

7.                     The law cited by the counsel for the complainant is not disputed but not helpful in the present complaint as case titled as Confident Dental Euipments Ltd. Versus Devesh Jain (Dr.) (supra) is distinguishable. In this case there was complaint in respect of defective goods i.e. Dental Chair. In this citation the definition of commercial purpose and commercial activities has been duly defined. But in the present case complainant is running a big sweet shop for earning profit using the Air Conditioners as well as big Refrigerator. The facts of the case law titled as Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam & others Versus Birender Singh, 2015(1) CLT page 282 are fully applicable to the facts of the present case wherein it has been held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(d)- Electricity- Commercial purpose- Complainant obtained the electricity connection for running liquor vend- Held-it is for “Commercial purpose” and not for earning livelihood- Complaint not maintainable- Appeal allowed.

8.                     In the circumstanced noted above, we are of the considered view that the present complaint is not maintainable being without jurisdiction as the electricity connection of the complainant is for purely commercial purpose /NDS having 19 KW sanctioned load. Therefore, the present complaint cannot be termed as a consumer dispute and hence the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer. As such, the application dated 30.06.2016 filed by the OPs for dismissal of complaint is hereby allowed and the present complaint stands dismissed being not maintainable 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: 26.08.2016.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                    (S.C.SHARMA)

                                     MEMBER.