Haryana

Ambala

CC/379/2016

Naveen Goel - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

P.S. Sharma

18 Jan 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                           Complaint No.:379 of 2016.

                                                           Date of Instt.: 10.10.2016.

                                                           Date of Decision: 18.01.2018.

 

Naveen Goel aged 40 years s/o Sh.Ram Lal Goel, Proprietor of Goel Marbles, Bara Thakurdwara,  Ambala City.

                                                                             …Complainant.

                             Versus

 

1.Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Vidyut Sadan, Sector-6, Panchkula, through Executive Engineer, Operation Division, UHBVN, Ambala City.

2.Sub Divisional Officer, Op. Sub Divisional (East), UHBVN, Ambala City.

 

                                                                             …Opposite Parties.

 

             Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

CORAM:        SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                                                             MS.ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER.

 

Present:                Sh. P.S.Sharma, counsel for the complainant.

                             Sh. A.S.Nehra, counsel for the opposite parties.

 

ORDER

 

                             Briefly stated the facts of the present complaint are that complainant is running a shop of Marbles in Bara Thakurdwara, Ambala City under the name and style of M/s Goel Marbles, Ambala City and is having electric connection bearing account No.SPO2-1062-L/CSP-055 with a sanctioned load of 7.7. KW. The complainant has been making the payments of regular bills to the OPs and nothing was due against it. in the month of April, 2014, the OP received a bill on average basis, therefore, the complainant took up the matter to OPs and also deposited Rs.400/- vide receipt No.294/86234 dated 27.05.2014 for installing parallel meter for checking the energy.  The check meter was installed on 14.06.2014 with initial reading 544 against SJO No.16/929 and the reading of the existing meter as recorded on the same date as 33752. The final reading of the check meter on 01.07.2014 was recorded as 577 and the old meter was having unit as 36287.  The check meter recorded 33 units whereas for the same period the old defective meter had recorded 2515 units but despite that the Ops kept on sending the bills on average basis.  The meter was checked on 12.01.2015 and thereafter the OPs had issued bill of Rs.30933/- per month w.e.f. 04/14 to 07/14 with average 4012 units.  In order to avoid the disconnection as threatened by the Ops, the complainant had deposited Rs.1.00.000/- on 21.06.2015 under protest. Thereafter, the complainant was supplied with the details of outstanding amount wherein it was revealed that the complainant was issued the bill on the basis of actual consumption of the defective meter replaced from the site and reported OK during checking. The complainant also visited OPs where he was told that  Internal Audit Party raised some observations regarding wrong bill of the account for Rs.1,21,988/- vide half margin No.165 dated 16.06.2014. The charges have been assessed by assuming the working of the disputed meter to be OK. The Ops had further issued bill dated 16.08.2016 payable upto 28.06.2016 for Rs.1.32.225 wherein an amount of Rs.1,28,482.73 have been shown as arrears.  The complainant requested the Ops to withdraw the said bill being illegal but to no avail.

2.                          On notice, OPs appeared and contested the complaint by filing joint reply wherein preliminary objections such as maintainability cause of action, jurisdiction and concealment of material facts have been taken. It has been submitted that  the complainant has taken LT Industrial Supply (LT) therefore he does not fall within the definition of consumer.  The electricity bill was raised from the complainant on account of defective dead stop meter with D-Code status for the period w.e.f. 05/14 to 01/15, therefore, the bill was issued on average basis from 05/14 to 01/15. On 12.01.2015, staff of the Nigam had visited the shop premises of complainant   and also prepared LL-1 duly acknowledged by the complainant. On dated 28.01.2015 meter was tested in M&T lab Dhulkot and after testing it was found OK, therefore, account of the complainant was overhauled for the period from 04/14 to 01/15 with amount of Rs.95046- and the complainant is bound to pay the said amount. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file carefully.

4.                          Before proceeding further it is desirable to discuss firstly whether the complainant falls with the ambit of consumer or not. Relevant provision 2 (1) (d) (i)  (ii) of Consumer Protection Act is as under:

consumer means any person who

 buys any goods 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 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) 2 hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and part by promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who 2 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. 1 Explanation. For the purposes of sub- clause (i) commercial purpose does not include use by a consumer of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self- employment

 

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the material available on the case file, it is clear that the electricity connection was under the category of NDS for Industrial commercial purposes i.e. LT Industrial Supply which clearly shows that the place in question where the electricity meter was installed was not being used for self-employment, therefore, the plea of the complainant that the electricity connection falls under the exclusion because the connection in question is for small marble shop being used for earning livelihood by self-employment is not tenable and the same is hereby rejected. Even from a bare reading of the  aforesaid section it is clear that person(s) availing services for 'commercial purpose' do not fall within the meaning of “consumer" and cannot be a complainant for the purpose of filing a complaint before the Consumer Forum,.

                             For the reason recorded above, since the complainant is not consumer within meaning of Section 2(1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, this Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. On this point reliance can be taken from case law titled as Rajesh Kumar Vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited decided by Honble State Commission on 19.04.2012 in FA No.348 of 2012.  Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.  However, complainant is at liberty for filing of fresh complaint on same cause of action before appropriate Court Forum within period of 60 days. The period during which the present complaint remained pending before this Forum is exempted for the purpose of limitation in terms of the judgment of Honble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Luxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute reported in 1995 (3) SCC Pg.583. Assistant of the Forum is directed to hand over original documents if any to the complainant after retaining photo copies of the same on file, on proper receipt and verification. Copies of the order be sent of parties concerned as per rule. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

ANNOUNCED ON: 18.01.2018                                              

                                   

 

 

(ANAMIKA GUPTA)           (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)    (D.N. ARORA)

     MEMBER                       MEMBER                           PRESIDENT