BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.281/16.
Date of instt.: 08.09.2016.
Date of Decision: 03.02.2017.
Krishan Kumar son of Sh. Kanwar Bhan r/o Arjun Nagar, Bye Pass, Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- Sub Divisional Officer, ‘OP’ Sub Division No.1, UHBVN Ltd. Kaithal, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.
- Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula through its Secretary.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Vinay Verma, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. J.P.Jaglan, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is consumer of Ops vide electricity connection No.0289200000 and has been paying the bills regularly. It is alleged that in the month of December, 2015 the meter of complainant became defective and started giving reading without putting any load. It is further alleged that the complainant moved an application to the Ops and after checking the said meter, the same was removed from the premises of complainant on 11.01.2016. It is further alleged that the Oops issued a bill dt. 22.07.2016 amounting to Rs.24,460/- and the complainant visited the premises of Ops and requested them to correct the above-said bill but the Ops did not correct the same rather send another bill dt. 22.08.2016 for sum of Rs.26,276/-. The said bill is wrong and illegal. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant is not a consumer as the connection in question is existing in the name of Ram Kishan; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as the connection in question is a nature of LT-industrial for commercial business i.e. tyre retrading. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Ld. Counsel for the Ops moved an application on 19.12.2016 for dismissal of complaint on the ground of jurisdiction alleging therein that the connection of complainant bearing account No.0289200000 installed in the premises of complainant is a LT-industrial connection, which is for the commercial business, so, this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. Reply of the application filed by the complainant.
4. Without going into any other controversy between the parties, it is in the interest of justice to decide firstly that whether this forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or not, so, the arguments on the application is heard. Ld. Counsel for applicant-Ops argued that the connection in question is of a nature of LT industrial. He further argued that this fact is clear from the bills that the connection in question is LT industrial. He produced an authority reported as U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & others Vs. Anis Ahmad. 2013(3) CLT page 227 (SC). On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the connection has been taken by the complainant for self-employment purposes as the complainant is doing the work of tyre retrading for earning his livelihood. He produced an authority cited in 2015(3) CLT page 89 (NC) titled as Kerala State Electricity Board & another Vs. Ysu Admanadar.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear from the bills in question placed on the file by the complainant that the nature of connection in question is LT-industrial. In the authority produced by the applicants-Ops reported as U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & others Vs. Anis Ahmad. 2013(3) CLT page 227, it has been held that Commercial purpose-Consumer-Complaint-Complainant-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. It has also been held in the said authority that Commercial purpose-complainants having electrical connections for industrial/commercial purpose-They do not come within the meaning of “consumer” as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986-They cannot be treated as “complainant”-They are not entitled to file any “complaint” before the Consumer Forum.
In the present case, the electricity connection in question of the complainant is LT-industrial which means the connection in question is for industrial/commercial purpose. The authority produced by the complainant is not applicable to the facts of instant case, whereas the authority produced by ld. Counsel for the applicants-Ops is fully applicable to the facts of instant case. Therefore, in view of the same, we are of the considered view that the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer as provided in Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
6. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the application moved by ld. Counsel for the Ops for dismissal of complaint and resultantly, the present complaint is dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the court of competent jurisdiction, if he desires so and in that eventuality, complainant will be entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of Limitation Act and the time taken during the pendency of this complaint shall be exempted. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.03.02.2017.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
