DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : 88/2018

Date of Institution : 25.07.2018

Date of Decision : 09.07.2019

 

Dina Nath aged about 46 years son of Sh. Ram Raj, resident of Dhanaula Road, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala 148101.                                  …Complainant

Versus

 

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Director/Chairman The Mall, Patiala 147001. 

2. Assistant Engineer (Supply), Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Sub Urban Division, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala 148101.  

3.XEN Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Sub Division Sanghera, Tehsil & District Barnala 148101.  

…Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: Sh. R.S. Sekhu counsel for complainant.

Sh. Lokeshwar Sewak counsel for opposite parties.  

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Kuljit Singh : President

2.Sh. Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member

 

(ORDER BY KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT):

1.    The complainant namely Dina Nath has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act (In short the Act) against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others. 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that one electricity connection bearing contract account No. 3002941892 was installed and running at Fish Farm owned by Parminder Kaur. The complainant has taken the above said Fish Farm on lease vide lease dated 16.6.2017, as such the complainant is the beneficiary of such electricity connection. The complainant paying the bills regularly to the opposite parties. It is further alleged that the complainant is astonished to receive the bill dated 25.7.2016 for Rs. 1,75,890/- sent by the opposite parties. Feeling aggrieved the complainant approached the opposite parties and moved applications dated 10.8.2015, 19.9.2016 and 22.9.2016 requesting them to intimate such high consumption and to check the meter and paid the required fee of Rs. 450/- that too twice vide receipts dated 19.9.2016 and 29.9.2016. On this the opposite parties admitted their fault and told the complainant to wait and raised subsequent bills including the above said disputed amount. However, acting arbitrarily the opposite parties disconnected the connection of the complainant. It is further alleged that the opposite parties are under the legal duty towards the complainant to correct the bill, but they did not pay any attention towards the grievance of complainant for which the complainant caused physical pain, mental agony and financial loss. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

i) The opposite parties may be directed to withdraw the alleged bill dated 19.3.2018 amounting to Rs. 3,36,388/-.  

ii) To pay Rs. 20,000/- on account of mental tension, agony and physical harassment.           

iii) To pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.  

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties filed a joint written version taking legal objections interalia on the grounds of locus-standi, cause of action, maintainability, jurisdiction and the power connection is being used for “commercial purpose” etc. It is further in the legal objections that as per records one Parminder Kaur is registered consumer of the opposite parties.

4. On merits,  it is admitted that the power connection bearing account No. 3002941892 installed at Fish Farm of Parminder Kaur. It is denied that complainant has taken the said Fish Farm on lease and the complainant is not a beneficiary consumer. It is further submitted that account No. SP49-377 was showing 7030 reading as on 12.6.2015 and the electricity was being used for Fish Farm, as such tariff under SP category was imposed. Therefore, bills were being prepared by showing “O” meter reading and these minimum chargeable bills were paid by Parminder Kaur and due to problem in the system bill was not being generated according to consumption. Bill was generated from 11.6.2015 to 31.8.2016 that was for Rs. 1,68,000/- and at the request of consumer the meter was sent to ME Lab Sangrur for checking and was found to be 'OK'. Thereafter, the bill for the period 1.9.2016 to 14.8.2017 was generated for Rs. 63,760/- and arrear amount was Rs. 1,68,000/- was not paid, as such this bill including penalty was for Rs. 2,72,816/-. However, this bill was not paid and during this period only an amount of Rs. 12,390/- was paid against 'O' reading bills. It is further submitted that till 19.5.2016 bills were prepared on domestic tariff, but when it came to the knowledge of the opposite parties that power was being used for Fish Farm the tariff was changed. Due to revision of tariff the bill dated 25.7.2016 was prepared for the last 12 months as per rules and regulations. It is further submitted that none of the applications was under the signatures or authority of the registered consumer, as such no action was taken and the fee of Rs. 450/- was paid by the registered consumer not by the complainant. The power supply is disconnected as per rules and regulations when bills were not paid. The bills are perfect and there is no scope for any type of correction. Hence, they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

5. In support of his case, the complainant tendered into evidence copy of lease deed Ex.C-1, copies of applications dated 10.8.2015, 19.9.2016, 22.9.2016 and 23.9.2016 Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5, copies of bills Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-8. 

6. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties  tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Jasdev Singh AEE Ex.O.P-1, copy of ME Lab report Ex.O.P-2 and closed the evidence. 

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 

8. The opposite parties have strongly contested the case of the complainant on the ground that complainant is running a Fish Farm and has sought the electricity connection for a non-domestic use and also is a 'commercial purpose'. Further, it is the case of the opposite parties that electricity energy is taken for the purpose of running a Fish Farm, as such, complainant does not become the 'consumer' of the opposite parties, as it is not a “consumer dispute” between the parties. 

9. In order to prove their version the opposite parties have placed on record affidavit of Jasdev Singh Assistant Executive Engineer of opposite parties, wherein he has specifically deposed that account No. SP49-377 was showing 7030 reading as on 12.6.2015 and the electricity was being used for Fish Farm, as such tariff under SP category was imposed and bills were being prepared by showing “O” meter reading and these minimum chargeable bills were paid by Parminder Kaur and due to problem in the system bill was not being generated according to consumption. He further submitted that bill was generated from 11.6.2015 to 31.8.2016 that was for Rs. 1,68,000/- and at the request of consumer the meter was sent to ME Lab Sangrur for checking and was found to be 'OK' and the bill for the period 1.9.2016 to 14.8.2017 was generated for Rs. 63,760/- and arrear amount was Rs. 1,68,000/- was not paid, as such this bill including penalty was for Rs. 2,72,816/-. However, this bill was not paid and during this period only an amount of Rs. 12,390/- was paid against 'O' reading bills. Further, due to revision of tariff the bill dated 25.7.2016 was prepared for the last 12 months as per rules and regulations. 

10. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties has contended that the agreement Ex.C-1 is incomplete as it is not signed by two witnesses moreover not executed between both the parties and it is only from Dina Nath and the real owner only signed the same, but she has not lease the electric connection to the complainant in any manner. We are of the view that it was within the knowledge of Dina Nath that there was SP electric connection running at the premises when he has taken the Fish Farm on lease/contract. We are also of the view that the complainant has taken a Fish Farm on lease/contract for generating profits and it is for commercial purpose, hence the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. 

11. It is further argued by the Ld. Counsel for opposite parties that complainant is not a “consumer” as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.

We are also equipped with the judgment of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, 2013 (1) CPJ 40, in case titled Puran Murti Education Society Vs UHBVNL.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Sections 2(1)(d), 2(1)(g)- Electricity Connection- 'Non-domestic' use- Determination- Contention, non-domestic does not automatically became 'commercial' and that motive of petitioner is benevolent, for a social cause, not for making products and selling them in market- Not accepted- Power is taken and utilized for the purpose of running private Engineering College- No evidence that college is being run for a charitable purpose- Complainant is not consumer. 

12. So, in view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum as the complainant is not a “consumer”. Accordingly, the present complaint is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records after its due compliance. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:

       9th Day of July 2019 

 

            (Kuljit Singh)

            President

              

(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)

Member