BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.39 of 2018.
Date of institution: 23.01.2018.
Date of decision:17.05.2019.
Jagdish Kaur Wd/o Sh. Jaswant Singh 2. Jitender Singh 3.Pushpinder Singh Ss/o Sh. Jaswant Singh 4. Ravinder Kaur 5. Narender Kaur Ds/o Sh. Jaswant Singh, R/o HUDA Kaithal/Chamber No.173, Distt. Courts, Kaithal, Distt. Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
- Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through its S.D.O., ‘OP’, S/D No.2, Kaithal, Distt. Kaithal.
- Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through its Sadan, Sector-6, Panchkula, Distt. Panchkula through its Secretary/M.D.
….Respondents.
Before: Sh. D.N.Arora, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Suman Rana, Member.
Present: Sh. Devinder Singh, Advocate, for the complainants.
Sh. J.P.Jaglan, Advocate for the OPs.
ORDER
D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT
The complainant namely Jaswant Singh (since deceased) has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant Jaswant Singh (since deceased) was consumer of Ops vide electricity connection bearing account No.UKA272008/5256200000 and was paying the bills regularly. It is alleged that the electric supply line is not properly maintained by the Ops. It is further alleged that the meter status code shown in the respective bills is shown as (A) but the Ops are issuing regular electricity bills on the reading basis which is not being recorded by the meter-reader of the Ops regularly. The complainant requested the Ops several times that the electricity consumption recording meter alongwith electricity supply line cable be maintained properly and the complainant may be charged as per its actual electricity consumption basis but the Ops lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. Now the Ops have issued the bill amounting to Rs.3034/- for the period November, 2017 to January, 2018 as units consumed 449. The said bill is wrong and illegal. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as the electric connection of NDS category and connection load of the electric connection of complainant is 1.00 K.W. and as per provision of Electricity Act regular consumption of complainant is duly recorded by the Nigam and shown in ledger record and the bill of complainant is calculated on the basis of regular consumption; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. The complainants tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW1/B and documents Ex.C1 & Ex.C2, Mark-CA to Mark-CC and thereafter, closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, the Ops tendered into evidence affidavit Annexure-RW1/A and documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R8 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
During the pendency of the case, ld. counsel for the complainant moved an application on 06.12.2018 for impleading the LRs of the complainant alleging therein that the complainant namely Jaswant Singh has been expired on 07.04.2018. The said application was allowed vide order dt. 17.12.2018 of this Forum. Amended title was filed by LRs of complainant through counsel on 17.12.2018.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
6. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is crystal clear that the complainant was having the connection in question for NDS purpose, as is clear from the bill in question. So, the case is beyond the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum. In this regard, we can rely upon a judgment reported as U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Others Vs. Anis Ahmad, 2013(3) CLT page 226 (Supreme Court), wherein it has been held that Complainants having electrical connection for industrial/commercial purpose-They do not come within the meaning of “consumer” as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Similarly, in the case titled as Mohammad Haseeb Ahmad Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board & others, 2010(4) CLT page 370 (NC), it has been held as “Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 2(1)(9)-Consumer having electric connection for running stone crusher is commercial activity and meant for generating profit.” Keeping in view the above authorities, as per the Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which is reproduced as under:-
(d) “consumer” means any person who,—
(i) 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
(ii) 12 [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 12 [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 13 [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose];
(Explanation: For the purposes of this clause, “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).
So, we are of the considered view that as per provision of Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer because the connection of complainant is non-domestic, even there is no pleading of the complainant that the said connection has been taken doing the business for livelihood and availed the service by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, so, this Forum has no jurisdiction.
7. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion and without going into any other controversy, we disposed off the present complaint on the ground of jurisdiction. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the civil court or court of competent jurisdiction, if so desired and in that eventuality, complainant will be entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of Limitation Act. Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled “Luxmi Engineering Works versus PSG Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC page 583. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:17.05.2019.
(D.N.Arora)
President.
(Suman Rana), (Rajbir Singh)
Member Member.
