BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                           Complaint No.:149 of 2017.

                                                           Date of Instt: 19.05.2017.

                                                           Date of Decision: 10.01.2018.

M/s Kanshi Nath & Sons 5208, DC Road, Ambala Cantt. through its proprietor Sh.Sanjay Goyal.

                                                                             …Complainant.

                             Versus

1.Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through Executive Engineer, Opration Division, UHBVN, Ambala Cantt, 12 Cross Road, Ambala Cantt.

2. SDO Operation Sub-Division No.2 Ambala.

                                                                             …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.Saravjeet Singh, counsel for the complainant.

                             Sh.Chandeep Singh Bindra, counsel for the opposite    parties.

ORDER:

                             Briefly stated the facts of the present complaint are that in the business premises of the complainant firm an electricity connection of NDS category bearing account No.6780600000 with sanctioned load of 05 KW has been installed and the said business is being carried out by means of self-employment for the purpose of livelihood. The complainant firm has been paying the electricity bills regularly. In the month of October 2015, the proprietor of the firm noticed that the electricity bills are being given on higher side; therefore, he moved an application dated 27.05.2015 with request to cheque the accuracy and for installing of parallel meter. After much delay, the officials of OP No.1  removed the challenged meter on 08.10.2015 vide LL-1 No.37/253 without installing parallel meter, however the electricity was restored through new meter.  The OP No.2 assured the complainant that the excess amount paid by the firm would be refunded over a period of two years if the meter was found fast after checking in M&T lab.  The consumption date of the year 2016 clearly shows that meter of the complainant firm was running fast but the OPs have not paid any heed to the request of the complainant to refund the excess amount charged from it.  The Ops have also not provided the report of M&T lab and officials of OPs have tried to disconnect the electricity connection on the ground that arrears had mounted, therefore, the complainant had left with no option but to make the part payment of Rs.36000 against the amount of Rs.135605 demanded from the complainant vide bill dated 04.03.2017. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

2.                          On notice, OPs appeared and contested the complaint by filing joint reply wherein it has been submitted that  the complainant firm is a very big firm running the business of paints and hardware for the last more than 50 years. The electricity connection in question is of NDS category which means that the same was solely obtained for commercial purpose, therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain/decide the present complaint. The meter of the complainant was checked on 08.10.2015 vide LL-1 book No.253/ Sr. No.37 dated 08.10.2015 and old meter was replaced with new meter immediately after its removing. At the time of checking it was found the connected load was 1.750 KW instead of sanctioned load 0.5 KW. The removed meter was sent for complete examination to the M&T Lab, Dhulkot. Three notices dated 23.10.2015, 03.11.2015 and 02.12.2015 were sent to Shri Sanjay Goel to come present in M&T lab for getting the meter checked but he refused to receive all the notices.  During checking the electricity meter of the complainant was found 30.23  slow as mentioned in M&T report. There is no deficiency in service on the part of 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 documents on the 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

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 installed at the complainant firm under the category of NDS.  From a bare reading of the section aforesaid 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.  The plea of the complainant firm is that Sanjay Goel is carrying on the business for self employment for earning livelihood is not supported by any cogent document and evidence.

                             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 Hon’ble 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 Hon’ble 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. The interim order passed by this Forum stands vacated. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

ANNOUNCED ON: 10.01.2018                                              

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

     MEMBER                       MEMBER                           PRESIDENT