Haryana

Karnal

CC/555/2021

Sultan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Bhupinder Kumar Jindal

04 Dec 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 555 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.04.10.2021

                                                        Date of Decision: 04.12.2023

 

Sultan Singh son of Shri Krishan Dyal, resident of House no.392, Jattan Gali, Kalandri Gate, Karnal. (aged about years) Aadhar card no.6972 3855 5650. Mobile no.98966-12393.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its SDO (OP), Sub Division L-13, Sub Urban, Karnal. District Karnal.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Suman Singh……Member

          

 Argued by: Shri Kartik Jindal, counsel for complainant.

                    Shri Radhey Shyam, counsel for the OP.

       

                    (Vineet Kaushik, Member)

ORDER:  

 

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is having electricity connection bearing account no.7267810000, which is installed in the shop of the complainant, situated at Subji Mandi, Karnal who is running a shop for his livelihood. Complainant is paying the electricity bills as per consumption without any default. The sanctioned load is 2.00KW on the said connection. In the said premises only one Bulb and Fan are installed. Last bill issued by the OP was from July, 2020 to August 2020 for 174 units which was duly deposited by the complainant. OP issued another bill for the period 20.08.2020 to 25.10.2020 for Rs.2,55,157/-, which was payable by 18.11.2020 and after due date, amount to be paid was Rs.2,62,553/-. In the said bill an amount of Rs.2,25,875/- has been shown for the unit consumed as 37571 without showing any detail or giving any detailed reason. After receiving the excessive bill, complainant contacted the officials of the OP several times for correction of bill but neither they corrected the bill nor gave any detailed reason or calculation as how the abovesaid excessive bill has been issued to the complainant. OP also refused to accept the current consumption charges from the complainant as the officials of the OP were adamant and directed the complainant to deposit the entire bill amount. The officials of the OP reached at the shop of the complainant for disconnecting the electricity supply and then under the compelling circumstances, complainant deposited Rs.7000/- under protest.  At the time of deposit of the said amount, OP assured the complainant, they will  rectify the bill according to actual consumption. But despite of the assurance to rectify, OP issued subsequent bills without making any correction. OP lastly issued the bill dated 29.08.2021 for the period of 21.06.2021 to 29.08.2021 for an amount of Rs.3,02,475/- if paid on due date and after due date Rs.3,11,283/-.  The abovesaid bills issued by the OP are illegal, null and void and arbitrary and not binding upon the complainant as the same have been sent to the complainant without any justification, reasons or calculation. It is further averred that after receiving the said bill, complainant approached the OP several times and requested to correct the aforesaid bill by removing the excessive amount from the said bill and to accept the current consumption charges. Instead of acceding the request of complainant, the officials of the OP told the complainant that in case the complainant fails to deposit the entire bill amount within the stipulated period, his electricity connection would be disconnected. The complainant deposited an amount of Rs.30,000/- with the OP on 28.09.2021 under protest just to avoid disconnection of his electricity connection as there is no other source of electricity with the complainant. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant was released a non-domestic supply connection bearing no.7267810000 and the bills were raised from time to time as per consumption and units recorded in the meter. It is denied for want of knowledge that complainant has installed a bulb and fan only in his premises and not used any other appliances. Complainant has not disclosed that what type of business is being carried out in his premises. The premises of the complainant is a commercial premises. The bill of Rs.2,55,157/- and after the due date, complainant was duty bound to pay Rs.2,62,553/-. The bill was prepared and issued on the basis of 35571/- units consumed by the complainant and recorded in the meter. It is further pleaded that the bill under challenge is not of excessive amount and was issued by the OP, as per the energy consumed by the complainant. The complainant is under legal obligation to deposit the bill amount issued on 18.11.2020. If the complainant fails to deposit the amount, in that event, the OP is constrained to disconnect the supply of the complainant as per rules. It is further pleaded that the complainant has failed to deposit the amount of bill dated 29.08.2021 of Rs.3,02,475/- and after due date Rs.3,11,283/-. The complainant is still using the electricity supply and the OP is competent to disconnect the supply of the complainant as per rules. Complainant is legally bound to deposit the amount and since the bill has been issued on the basis of unit consumed by the complainant, so there was no reason to rectify the bill. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of electricity bill for the month of June to August 2021 Ex.C1, copy of payment receipt Ex.C2, copy of bill for the month of December, 2020 Ex.C3, copy of bill for the month of October, 2020 Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 30.03.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Vinay Kumar SDO Ex.OP1/A, copy of payment history Ex.OP1, copy of bills/payment history Ex.OP2, copies of bill dated 11.11.2020, 26.12.2020, 12.04.2021, 21.06.2021 and 29.08.2021 and closed the evidence on 08.06.2023 by suffering separate statement.

 6.            We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, vehemently argued that complainant is having an electricity connection in his shop and is paying the electricity bill regularly. The sanctioned load is 2.00KW on the said connection. OP issued a bill for the period 20.08.2020 to 25.10.2020 for Rs.2,55,157/-. In the said bill an amount of Rs.2,25,875/- has been shown for the unit consumed as 37571 without showing any detail or giving any detailed reason. On receipt of said excessive bill, complainant approached the OP and requested for correct of the same but OP refused to do so and also refused to accept the current consumption charges. The officials of the OP reached the shop of the complainant for disconnecting the electricity supply and then under the compelling circumstances, complainant deposited Rs.7000/- under protest.  After that OP issued the bill dated 29.08.2021 for the period of 21.06.2021 to 29.08.2021 for an amount of Rs.3,02,475/-, which is illegal, null and void and arbitrary. Complainant approached the OP several times and requested to correct the said bill and to accept the current consumption charges but instead of acceding the request of complainant, the officials of the OP told the complainant that in case the complainant would not deposit the entire bill amount within the stipulated period, in that eventuality, his electricity connection would be disconnected. The complainant deposited an amount of Rs.30,000/- on 28.09.2021 under protest just to avoid disconnection of his electricity connection and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant was released a non-domestic supply connection. The premises of the complainant is a commercial premises. Hence, complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer. The bill of Rs.2,55,157/- issued by the OP on the basis of 35571/- units consumed by the complainant. He further argued that complainant has failed to deposit the amount of bill dated 29.08.2021 of Rs.3,02,475/- and after due date Rs.3,11,283/-. Complainant is legally bound to deposit the  bill amount and since the bill has been issued on the basis of unit consumed by the complainant and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, complainant is having a non-domestic electricity connection bearing no. 7267810000 in his shop.

11.           Before going to the merits of the case, firstly we decide as to whether complainant falls under the definition of ‘consumer’ or not as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019?

                 The consumer is defined in Section 7 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which is reproduced as under:-

(7) “Consumer” means any person who-

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promise or partly paid and partly promises, 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)  hires or avails of  any services 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 beneficiary of such services other than the person who(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 but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes.

Explanation- For the purposes of this clause-

(a) the expression “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment.”

(b) the expressions “buys any goods” and “hires or avails any services” include offline or online transactions through electronic means or by teleshopping or direct selling or multi-level marketing;

 

 12.          In the present complaint, complainant himself admitted in his complaint that the non-domestic connection is installed in the shop premises of the complainant. Meaning, thereby, the connection in question is used by the complainant for commercial purpose. It is not a case of the complainant that there is no source of income except the said shop. Hence , this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint being not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. However, complainant is at liberty to approach the competent court/Authority of jurisdiction for redressal of his grievances, if so desired. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:04.12.2023     

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Suman Singh)

                     Member                        Member