PER:

Charanjit Singh, President

1        The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite party on the allegations that for the purpose of growing and breeding of fisheries the complainant had taken some special electricity connection approved by Government of Punjab, known as APSP, having Circular No. CC/04/2015 having account Number T62SP531290A, for intensive fisheries at his plant situated at village Warring, Post Office Mohanpur, Naushehra Pannuan, Tarn Taran and breeding of fisheries is the sole bread earning source of the complainant. The complainant was paying the electricity bills, as demanded by opposite party for the consumption of electricity regularly and even at some instance more than consumption readings at rates approved for the electricity connection of special category mentioned above. The electricity meter installed at the fisheries plant was running accurately for the last long period without any defect and as such, consumption displayed by meter installed before 10.8.2016 was normal in average and as such the consumption of complainant at fisheries unit in terms of money was between Rs.1,000/- to Rs. 2,000/- per month and it was the average consumption shown by the meter in the past. On 6.9.2016 the complainant noticed the electricity meter installed on the fisheries unit and came to now that it was running at very much more speed than it should be showing on the display indicator, so the complainant made complaint to the opposite party. The opposite party disconnected the electricity supply given to the Unit and SDO Sh. Raghbir Singh and J.E. Sh. Jaswant Singh reached the premises and checked the load as well as whole of the wiring and surrounding of the unit so as to verity of any change in the machineries installed there but they found nothing new and special. The electricity meter after verification reconnected and electricity supply immediately and after that the complainant moved an application to the opposite party to reduce the sanctioned load of the fisheries unit that is from 18 K.W to 7 K.W. being minimum and the same application was allowed by the opposite party by accepting load deduction fee of Rs. 100/- on 26.10.2016. The bill received by the complainant after the restoration electricity was from 21.10.2016 to 31.10.2016 and the consumption between this period was described by the bill dated 13.11.2016 as Zero consumption and the meter status was OK. The complainant was embarrassed when he received a bill dated 17.12.2016 qua which opposite party demanded Rs. 34,840/- from the complainant by showing consumption of 6114 units for the consumption month November 2016. The complainant approached the opposite party through Mohinder Pal Singh, R.A. as the opposite party was on election duty and Mohinderpal Singh R.A. was the dealing hand although he showed his incapacity in the matter. The opposite party joined the office after election on 22.3.2017 and the complainant explained his grievance to him as discussed above, so after hearing the grievances the opposite party told the complainant to challenge the meter by depositing Rs. 450/- as fee for the same, which was deposited on 22.3.2017 by the complainant.  The opposite party replaced the old meter with new one and told the complainant that the removed meter will be sent to the M.E. Lab situated at Amritsar for checking any defects or whatsoever and he will call the complainant and the meter will be inspected in his presence and it will be checked as per the techniques for the same. The opposite party after removing the meter did not informed the complainant of the date on which the meter will be checked although the complainant had been regularly visiting opposite party to enquire about it but no time and date was told to the complainant by the opposite party rather the opposite party got signature of the complainant on some documents regarding the consent of checking of meter and as such did not call the complainant at the time of alleged checking and the meter was allegedly checked by the opposite party on 6.9.2017 in the absence of the complainant and the opposite party told the complainant that the meter was observed being OK and without any defects but did not give any written report and outcome regarding it rather disconnected the electricity supply of the fisheries unit of the complainant without any notice for the same. The disconnection of the electricity supply resulted in halting of working of the machinery unit of the fisheries resulting in death of fish crop instantly weighing about 50 Metric Tons and as such, the complainant suffered a loss of about Rs. 50 Lacs due to the death of fish crop. The complainant had availed loan of Rs. 20 Lacs from his bank and which was to be returned by selling the fish crop and the death of fish crop resulted in non-paying of the outstanding loan of Rs. 10 Lacs and as such the complainant became defaulter of the loan subsequently resulting in mental pain and agony of the complainant. During the course of proceedings the complainant came across disconnection order issued in the month of June 2017, during the visits to the opposite party regarding the meter and came to know that disconnection order dated was kept concealed by the opposite party through the opposite party had been demanding electricity bills and the complainant paid Rs. 10,000/- by transferring from his wife’s account on 27.3.2017 and the same amount was credit back to this account due to some technical banking reasons although this amount was again transferred to the account of opposite party on 6.9.2017 running up to October 2017 and as such, the complainant was not actually the defaulter of the electricity bills. The complainant approached the opposite party several times in between and demanded Rs. 50 Lacs  as compensation from the opposite party.  But the opposite party told him to put his case before Disputes Settlement Committee of the Electricity Department and did not act in any way to satisfy complainant rather the electricity meter installed on the unit was removed by him on November 2017. The complainant had to consult psychiatrist as he had suffered depression due to loss incurred by him due to the act of the opposite party and is as such under treatment for the same for which he had to bear the expenses of the treatment also. The complainant has prayed that the opposite party may kindly be directed to pay Rs. 18 Lacs as compensation to the complainant for loss suffered by him due to damage of the fish crop and Rs. 1 Lac as compensation, Rs. 30,000/- as litigation expenses  and to withdraw the demand of Rs. 60,570/- of the opposite party vide bill dated 12.8.2017, Rs. 34,620/- demanded by it first time in the Bill dated 17.12.2016, Rs. 25,750/-  being fine in subsequent bills. Rs. 30.000/- 

2        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Party and opposite party appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the complaint by taking preliminary objection that the complainant by way of his fisheries farm is involved in commercial activities of breeding, harvesting and sale of fish at a large scale from his fisheries farm and has also employed number of persons as employees to carry out all these activities. The present complaint with respect to commercial nature of the business is not maintainable. On merits, it was pleaded that the meter installed at the unit of the complainant was not running at more speed as wrongly and falsely alleged. Even on inspection made by officials of opposite party nothing was found wrong with the meter installed. At the insistence and request of the complainant to get the mater checked for its accuracy the meter was removed and packed in card board box duly sealed and signed by the complainant and officials of the opposite party on the paper seals affixed on the box and with written consent of the complainant to get the meter checked from the laboratory in his absence as he had full faith in the process. Thereafter, the meter was sent and was got checked in Meter Testing Laboratory of PSPCL at Verka (Amritsar) and was found correct in recording the consumption of units of energy consumed and the bill was issued to the complainant is for the energy consumed by him and there is no penalty of any kind or amount by way of penalty claimed from the complainant. The complainant is liable to make payment for the energy consumed by him. The disputed bill has been issued to the complainant for the period 27.10.2016 to 28.11.2016 for consumption of 6114 units of electricity, which was recorded by the meter. The meter was not having any defect at all nor any such alleged defect was ever alleged by the complainant and he was bound to make payment of amount claimed through issued bill for the period mentioned in the bill. Due to non-payment of the amount due, the connection of the complainant was permanently disconnected as per rules applicable to such like cases of default vide order of disconnection dated 21.6.2017. There is no illegality in issue of the consumption bill for the energy consumed. Every consumer is bound to make payment for the consumed energy and cannot avoid to make the payment on false and flimsy grounds. The meter was checked after written consent of the complainant for checking of the meter in his absence as he has full faith in the checking of the meter in the laboratory. Accordingly, the meter was checked in laboratory and was found to be accurate and the report was also intimated to the complainant and he never raised any objection with respect to the correctness or the veracity of the report and the same had become final and the complainant cannot be allowed or supposed to raise false, wrong and bogus plea about the correctness of meter.  The complainant has made false and baseless allegations about death of fish crop without any documentary proof thereof. The complainant was defaulter of the opposite party in payment of consumption bills. The meter was removed after disconnection of the connection of the complainant due to non-payment of the consumption bills and the complainant had become a defaulter and the connection can be disconnected due to default in payment and as provided in rules applicable to such like cases.  There is no name and address of any psychiatrist allegedly consulted by the complainant nor any date, month and year of such alleged consultation has been mentioned. Due to permanent disconnection of his electricity connection the complainant was no more a consumer of the opposite party. As he was not a consumer of the opposite party on the date of filing of the present complaint, he could not invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission. The opposite party has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  Alongwith the written version, the opposite party has placed on record affidavit of Surjit Singh Ex. OP1/A alongwith documents Ex. OP1 to Ex. OP3.

3        The complainant has filed the rejoinder and denied all the allegations of the written version and reiterated the stand as taken in the complaint and alongwith the rejoinder, the complainant has placed on record affidavit of complainant Ex. C-1 alongwith documents Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-23.

4        We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and have gone through the documents placed on the file by the parties.

5        Without touching the merits of the case we have to decide the point of maintainability before this commission. The case of the complainant is that for the purpose of growing and breeding of fisheries the complainant had taken some special electricity connection approved by Government of Punjab, known as APSP, having Circular No. CC/04/2015 having account Number T62SP531290A, for intensive fisheries at his plant situated at village Warring, Post Office Mohanpur, Naushehra Pannuan, Tarn Taran. The said connection is installed at the fishery plant of the complainant  and the opposite parties disconnected the electricity supply of the fisheries unit of the complainant. Further it is the case of the complainant that the disconnection of the electricity supply resulted in halting of working of the machinery unit of the fisheries resulting in to death of fish crop instantly weighing about 50 Metric Tons and as such, the complainant suffered a loss of about Rs. 50 Lacs due to the death of fish crop. The complainant had availed loan of Rs. 20 Lacs from his bank and which was to be returned by selling the fish crop and the death of fish crop resulted in non-paying of the outstanding loan of Rs. 10 Lacs and as such the complainant became defaulter of the loan subsequently resulting in mental pain and agony of the complainant. On the other hands, Ld. counsel for the opposite parties contended that the complainant by way of his fisheries farm is involved in commercial activities of breeding, harvesting and sale of fish at a large sale from his fisheries farm and has also employed number of persons as employees to carry out all these activities. The present complaint with respect to commercial nature of the business is not maintainable. He further contended that the complainant submitted in Para No. 1 of the complaint that, about 50 Metric tonnes of the fish crop worth Rs. 50 Lacs was destroyed and it clearly goes to show that it was a commercial one because 50 Metric tonnes of fish cannot be produced and collected/ harvested in fish farm by single person nor, taken out from the pond by single person and many persons are employed for the purposes and it clearly goes to show that it was for a commercial purpose as it is clear from the account number itself where the account is S.P. (Small Power Industry Category) The opposite party has placed reliance on 2005(1) CPJ Page 112 and prayed that the present complaint be dismissed.

6        The complainant has installed SP connection in his fishery plant and as per complaint, he has stored 50 Metric Tonnes.   It is well settled law that hiring of service for commercial purpose has specifically been excluded from the definition of service as laid down in the Consumer Protection Act Reliance can be placed upon the judgement of Hon'ble National Commission reported in Meera Industries Vs. Modern Constructions II(2009) CPJ 402 (NC) holding that services hired for commercial purposes do not fall within the definition of consumer dispute. Further reliance has been placed upon M/s.N.L.P.Organics Pvt. Ltd. Bhiwadi, District Alwar Vs. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Indian Bank, Chennai and others in Original Petition No.158 of 1999 decided on 14.7.2014 of the Hon’ble National Commission in which it has been held that where the complainant has transit business, he cannot be said to be a consumer and the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score only.

7        In view of the above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer as the dispute is with regard to commercial in nature. As such there is no merit & substance in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Commission.            

Announced in Open Commission

9.12.2021