DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, LUCKNOW
CASE No.214 of 2005
Tahir Hussain, aged about 28 yrs.,
S/o Late Nasir Hussain,
R/o ShopNo. 44,
Opposite Karbala Azeemullah Khan,
Talkatoraa, Lucknow.
……Complainant
Versus
Madhyanchal Vidut Vitran Nigam Ltd.,
Shakti Bhawan, Ashok Marg, Lucknow.
.......Opp. Party
Present:-
Sri Vijai Varma, President.
Smt. Anju Awasthy, Member.
JUDGMENT
This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the OP for directing the OP to quash all the electricity bill for the period after the date of disconnection of electricity and to issue fresh electricity bill based on the consumed electricity units at the time of disconnection without levying any surcharge and for payment of compensation of Rs.10,000.00 and cost of suit of Rs.2,000.00.
The case in brief of the Complainant is that in the year 1990 he applied to the OP for the installation of a new electricity connection for starting his newly opened furniture shop. In pursuance of Complainant’s application the OP on 20.02.1991 gave to the Complainant an electricity connection bearing Book No.1401 connection No.600915 with an electricity meter No.L-21679 which was installed by the OP in the said shop of the Complainant. As the Complainant had just begun his business at that time and being novice in business the Complainant suffered heavy loss due to which the Complainant was forced to shut down his shop just after a few
-2-
months. In the year 1996 the OP disconnected the electricity connection of the Complainant without giving any show cause notice at the meter reading of 705 units on account of arrears of dues. At the time of disconnection the Complainant even asked the OP to give in writing official acknowledgement regarding disconnection of electricity connection of the Complainant but unfortunately at that time neither the OP gave any acknowledgment receipt of disconnection nor any other thing in writing regarding disconnection of an electricity connection of the Complainant. Thereafter the Complainant stopped receiving electricity bills and upon enquiry from the officers of OP it was told to the Complainant that as more than six months have lapsed from the date of disconnection, hence the agreement of OP with the Complainant stands terminated and henceforth neither the connection will be restored nor any bill will be given to the Complainant. For years the Complainant did not hear anything from the OP and in the year October 2004 the Complainant out of blue received a demand notice from the OP amounting to Rs.70,363.00 dated 14.09.2004. After the receipt of said demand notice the Complainant immediately got in touch with the OP upon which the OP assured the Complainant to withdraw the said demand notice after conducting enquiry. In January 2005 the engineers of OP conducted a detailed enquiry in which it was held that the electricity connection of the Complainant was permanently disconnected in the year March 1996 at the meter reading of 705. In spite of report of OP on the permanent disconnection of electricity of the Complainant the OP again sent to the Complainant an electricity bill dated 07.03.2005 for Rs.82,284.00 displaying arrears even after the date of permanent disconnection. The Complainant is not liable to pay any charges after the date of disconnection of electricity as after the date of disconnection neither the Complainant has used the electricity nor the Complainant has availed the
-3-
services of the OP in any form. As per the rules of OP if electricity remains disconnected for a period of more than 6 months then the permanent disconnection will be treated from the date of disconnection and in the instant matter the OP has declared the electricity connection of the Complainant permanently disconnected in the March 1996. Levying of electricity charges even after the date of disconnection is a deficiency in service of the OP, hence this complaint.
The OP has filed the WS wherein it is mainly submitted that the notice of disconnection is specifically written on the bill itself in the form of warning that if that bill is not paid in time the disconnection shall be made under Section 24 (1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 but the Complainant had not deposited his bills even though his connection continued upto 1996. The Complainant had not filed any explanation of the notice as required from him under the Act. The Complainant is duty bound to pay the minimum charges upto the date of permanent disconnection. The bills have been correctly issued as per rules and finally revised bill was issued. The complaint is highly time barred and it is not maintainable. The OP had given him electrical connection to Complainant in the said shop for commercial purpose. According to Section 2 (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act the Complainant is not covered under the definition of consumer as he has obtained the services for commercial purposes, hence this complaint is not maintainable. The OP committed no deficiency in the matter as it issued the bills according to regulation and tariff. After providing electric connection the bills was regularly issued to the consumer alongwith other consumers according to rule but he avoided paying the bill. There is no other option left to the OP except to issue the demand notice under Section 3 of the UP Government Electrical Undertaking (Dues Recovery) Act, 1958 as provided in sub-regulation (xiii) of regulation No.19 of said regulations. The Complainant has not
-4-
given any answer to the said notice, hence the OP has to issue recovery certificate against him. The OP is dealing with Complainant’s problem according to the said Act and regulation as it deals with the other consumers. The OP is a statutory corporation it functions through Act, regulation, rule, code and order issued from time to time. The OP or its officers had no enmity with the Complainant so the OP on the request of the Complainant made enquiry into the matter and considering the disconnection the bills for the dues is revised. The revised bill is issued according to the tariff, regulation and the code applicable in his case so no consumer dispute exists. If the Complainant deposits any excess amount that could be very easily adjusted against his dues or may be refunded as per provisions of the said regulations and code so no question of avoiding any compensation or cost arises for him. The OP has issued the bill regularly according to the rule, regulation as per rate of tariff enforced at that time on the sanctioned load but the Complainant had not deposited the bill amount which he is legally bound to pay. The OP is entitled for cost to the Complainant for false complaint.
The Complainant has filed his affidavit with 5 annexures. The OP has filed the affidavit of Sri V.K. Kaushik, Executive Engineer, UPPCL.
Heard Counsel for the Complainant but none appeared from the side of the OP to argue the case. Perused the entire record.
Now, it is to be seen as to whether this complaint is time barred or not and whether this case is not maintainable as the electricity connection was for commercial purpose or not? It is also to be seen as to whether the Complainant was wrongly issued the electricity bills for Rs.82,284.00 as arrears even after the date of permanent disconnection, therefore they have committed deficiency in service or not?
We first take up the point as to whether this case is time
-5-
barred or not? The OP has taken the stand that this case is time barred as according to the Complainant himself the connection continued upto 1996 when it was disconnected, therefore the Complainant had the cause of action in the year 1996 whereas the complaint was filed in the year 2005 but in this regard the argument is advanced by the learned Counsel for the Complainant that he received the electricity bill dated 07.03.2005 for Rs.82,284.00 displaying arrears after the date of permanent disconnection and therefore it is only on 07.03.2005 that the cause of action arose and therefore this complaint which was filed on 23.03.2005 is well within time. From the record, it transpires that a bill for Rs.82,284.00 was sent in the year 2005 showing the period of bill w.e.f. 28.02.2005 to 07.03.2005. The Complainant has come to the Forum for quashing the aforesaid bill of 07.03.2005, therefore this case obviously is filed well within time and it cannot be said that it is barred by time.
Now we come to the next point as to whether this case is not maintainable as the electricity connection was for commercial purpose or not? It is mentioned in the WS of the OP that a case pertaining to commercial electricity connection is not maintainable in this Forum as per the provision of Consumer Protection Act under Section 2 (1)(d)(ii) where the services which a person avails of are for any commercial purpose. On the contrary, it is argued by the learned Counsel for the Complainant that the Complainant had merely opened a furniture shop for earning his livelihood exclusively by means of self employment, therefore it falls within the explanation clause of Section 2 (1)(d)(ii), therefore the benefit of exclusion clause for the aforesaid provision has to be given to the Complainant and therefore this case is maintainable in this Forum. Now the explanation clause of Section 2 (1)(d)(ii) it is provided that the “ ‘commercial purpose’ does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services
-6-
availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self employment.” Since the Complainant was availing of services exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment, therefore this case is maintainable in this Forum. There is no counter to this specific assertion on oath that he was availing the services exclusively of the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment, therefore even when the Complainant was having an electricity connection for commercial purpose, the case is maintainable in this Forum.
Now, we come to the main point as to whether the Complainant was wrongly issued the electricity bills for Rs.82,284.00 as arrears even after the date of permanent disconnection, therefore they have committed deficiency in service or not? In this regard, it is argued by the learned Counsel for the Complainant that OP issued a bill for Rs.82,284.00 dated 07.03.2005 showing certain arrears where as the electricity connection was permanently disconnected in the year 1996. The OP in their WS have stated that on the request of the Complainant they had made enquiry into the matter and considering the disconnection, the bills of the dues were revised. This clearly shows that they admit that the electricity connection was disconnected and it supports the case of the Complainant that the electricity connection of his shop was disconnected in March 1996. He has also filed the copy of the report regarding permanent disconnection which shows that the permanent date of disconnection was March 1996. Now, here the question arises that when the permanent disconnection was done in March 1996 then how the OP is showing the arrears of the electricity consumed by the Complainant after 1996. Obviously, there is no answer or justification to this demand and therefore issuing bill for demanding Rs.82,284.00 from the Complainant after the
-7-
electricity connection having been disconnected in March 1996 is totally unjustified, therefore the bill for Rs.82,284.00 is to be quashed as there is no justification for the bill of Rs.82,284.00. The Complainant is also entitled to the cost of the litigation.
ORDER
The complaint is partly allowed. The bill of Rs.82,284.00 dated 07.03.2005 is quashed.
The OP is also directed to pay Rs.2,000.00 (Rupees Two Thousand Only) as cost of the litigation.
The compliance of the order is to be made within a month.
(Anju Awasthy) (Vijai Varma)
Member President
Dated: 19 January, 2016
