BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.62 of 2019.
Date of institution: 06.03.2019.
Date of decision:28.01.2020.
Rohtash son of Sh. Om Parkash, Ward No.1, Kalayat.
…Complainant.
Versus
Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through its S.D.O., ‘OP’, Kalayat, Distt. Kaithal.
….Respondent.
Before: Sh. D.N.Arora, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Suman Rana, Member.
Present: Sh. Kuldeep Dhull, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Ramesh Rana, Advocate for the OP.
ORDER
D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant is having three phase electricity connection bearing No.SP-01-0115-N. It is alleged that the complainant is running small Atta Chakki to livelihood for his family. It is further alleged that the said meter was O.K. and consumption of said meter was 728 units but the department has changed the previous meter with the new one without the consent of complainant. The said meter is showing the reading of two months as 4580 which shows that the said meter is defective. The complainant moved an application to the OP to change the present meter but the OP did not do so. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed for acceptance of complaint. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, the OP appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that the electricity connection of the complainant is of LT/Industry category and the complainant is running an Atta Chakki through the above-said connection for commercial purpose, so, the complainant does not fall under the category of consumer for the purpose of Consumer Protection Act; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C13 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, the OP tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure-R1 & Annexure-R2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
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, there are two points involved in the present case. The first point is whether the present complaint is maintainable because the connection in question is L.T. Industry. The complainant contended that he is running the atta chakki and it is the only source of income to maintain his family. The Ops also contended that the complainant is also running an atta chakki. We are of the considered view that the atta chakki does not cover the commercial purpose and it is only for livelihood purpose. In this regard we can rely upon the law cited in 2015(3) CLT page 89 titled as Kerala State Electricity Board & another Vs. Yesu Adimanadar decided by Hon’ble National Commission, wherein it has been held that Electricity-Commercial purpose-Plea of Op that as complainant was using electricity for the industrial unit for commercial purpose, he is not a consumer-Held-That the consumer was using electricity in his small scale unit for earning his livelihood-So he was Consumer under the Act.
The another point involved in the present case is that the complainant contended that earlier the meter was changed by the Nigam and new meter is showing the reading of two months as 4580 units. The Nigam has already changed the meter as per sales circular and instructions of the Nigam. Admittedly, the load of connection of complainant is above 10 K.W. i.e. 11.700 K.W. The instructions i.e. sales circular No.U-09/2015 Annexure-R2 placed on file by the Ops. As per column No.4 of said sales circular, the case of complainant falls above 10 K.W. and capacity of the meter is above 10 K.W. i.e. 11.700 K.W. as mentioned above. So, the connection of complainant is entered under L.T.Industry upto 50 K.W. The Ops changed the meter of all the L.T. Industry connection and installed smart meter as per sales circular No.U-09/2015 Annexure-R2. As per the new installation of the meter, now reading will come from KVAh instead of KWh and there is no change in the tariff rate and accordingly, the Ops have changed the meter as per instructions of Sales Circular. We are of the considered view that the complainant stating that the meter is defective one, he has not moved the application to the Nigam except the application Annexure-C1 but there is no endorsement of receiving of any official/officer of Ops on this application. It means that the complainant has not approached the Ops for changing the meter or checking the meter if the same was defective. So, we find no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.
7. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. However, it is made clear that if the complainant is aggrieved that his meter is defective, he may apply to the Nigam for changing the meter as per Nigam rules. 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.:28.01.2020.
(D.N.Arora)
President.
(Suman Rana), (Rajbir Singh)
Member Member.
