State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Hfcl Infotel Ltd. vs Pseb on 29 January, 2015
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 1871 of 2011
Date of institution : 20.12.2011
Date of decision : 29.01.2015
HFCL Infotel Limited (Quadrant Televentures Ltd.) 188-R, Model
Town, Connect Plannets, Jalandhar through its authorized
representiative
.......Appellant/complainant
Versus
1. The Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala.
2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board Sub
Division, Model Town, Jalandhar.
3. Jatinder Singh, Proprietor M/s Karan Communications, 188-R,
Model Town, Connect Plannets, Jalandhar.
......Respondents/Opposite parties
Appeal against order dated 10.10.2011 of
the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Jalandhar.
Quorum:-
Sh. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Presiding Member.
Sh. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Nakul Sharma, Advocate.
For respondent No.1 & 2 : Sh. A.K. Sharma, Advocate
For respondent No.3 : Ex-parte
....................................................................................
Baldev Singh Sekhon, Presiding Member:
ORDER
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as "complainant") against order dated 10.10.2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal First Appeal No. 1871 of 2011. 2 Forum, Jalandhar (in short "District Forum") in CC No.946 of 2009, vide which its complaint was dismissed on the ground that the complainant firm was not a consumer of the OPs under Consumer Protection Act as it was using the electric connection obtained by it for commercial purposes. The complaint was however dismissed on merits as well.
2. The facts of the case, which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal, are that the complainant No.2 is a franchisee/dealer of complainant No.1 and is running its business under name and style of M/s Karan Communications at Model Town, Jalandhar. The electric meter bearing account No.J46 GC No.460027P was installed in its premises in the name of OP No.1. It was pleaded that the average bill of the said complainant was Rs.7500/- per month but in the bill raised on 29.07.2009, meter was shown as "Dead Stop". Thereafter, on 25.09.2009 a very excessive bill to the tune of Rs.1,35,080/- was raised by the OPs. The complainant No.1 approached the OPs to rectify the bill but they refused to do so. In the complaint filed before the District Forum directions were sought that the impugned demand of Rs.1,35,080/- be set aside and electricity connection be not disconnected on account of non-payment of the said illegal demand. Costs and compensation were also prayed.
3. Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed written statement pleading therein that the electric connection of the First Appeal No. 1871 of 2011. 3 complainant No.1 was released under NRS category and same was being used for commercial purposes for earning large scale profits and, therefore, it was not a consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the impugned bill was also justified to be correct because the meter of the complainant no.1, when tested in ME Lab, was found to be working properly. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
4. The parties led their evidence, after going through the evidence and documents placed on record by the parties, District Forum dismissed the complaint of the complainant.
5. Aggrieved by this order, complainant No.1 has filed the present appeal on the ground that the said electric connection is installed in the premises of the complainant No.2 who is a franchisee/dealer of the M/s HFCL Infotel Ltd. and running his business with his proprietorship under the name and style of "Karan Communications." It was further submitted that electric meter bearing account No.J46 GC No.460027P, showing excessive consumption, was ordered to be changed and bill was raised for an amount of Rs.1,35,080/-, which was illegal and arbitrary and beyond the average consumption of the complainant No.1. The said meter was faulty and as such demand cannot be raised as per the consumption recorded by it. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 & 2 submitted that there was no merit in the appeal and the same be dismissed.
First Appeal No. 1871 of 2011. 4
6. Perusal of the record shows that the electric connection, bearing no. J16 GC No.460027P, was running in the name of appellant/complainant No.1 under NRS (Non Residential Supply). The OPs have themselves admitted that this connection was being used to run business by complainant No.2. The appellant has stated in the complainant as well as in the appeal that the complainant No.2 Karan Communications is its franchisee/dealer and is running his business with his proprietorship firm under the name and style of Karan Communications. It is, thus, admitted that the said connection was being used for running the business by the dealer of the appellant company. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant failed to answer the query by this Commission how it fell under the category of consumer as defined in Section 2(1))d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In view of above admission the appellant/complainant is not held to be a consumer of the OPs and thus the complaint, filed by the appellant/complainant, is not maintainable. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
7. The learned District Forum also took the same view but still proceeded on to decide the case on merits as well. Once it is held that complainants were not the consumer qua the OPs then the complaint should not have been dealt on merits and should have been out rightly dismissed.
First Appeal No. 1871 of 2011. 5
8. In view of the above findings, the appeal of the complainant which is devoid of any merit is dismissed.
9. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
10. Order be communicated to the parties.
(BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) PRESIDING MEMBER (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM) MEMBER January 29, 2015 MM