State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Electricity Board vs Gurbachan Singh on 10 June, 2011
F. A. No. 5 of 2006
1
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 5 of 2006
Date of institution : 3.1.2006
Date of Decision : 10.6.2011
1. Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division Kandhala jattan, Distt.
Hoshiarpr through its Sub Divisional Officer.
.....Appellants.
Versus
Gurbachan Singh S/o Atam Singh R/o Cholang. Distt. Hoshiarpur.
...Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated
9.11.2005 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal, President.
Mrs.Amarpreet Sharma, Member
Sh.Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member Present:-
For the appellants : Sh.J.K.Gurna, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh. Mukand Gupta, Advocate
Baldev Singh Sekhon (Member)
This appeal is filed by the appellants against order dated 9.11.2005 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter called ' the District Forum') vide which the complaint of the respondent was accepted.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent had an electric connection bearing account No. AD29/0173-WK and was regularly paying the bills to the appellants. The respondent was using this electric connecting at his premises to earn his livelihood hence the respondent was a 'consumer' of the appellants.
F. A. No. 5 of 20062
3. It was pleaded by the respondent that in the last week of January, 2005 he was surprised to find that on the wall of the Northern side of the premises, officials of the appellants had fixed 11 KV wire through hooks The respondent immediately contacted the appellants and enquired regarding the reason for affixing this high voltage line on the wall of the premises of the respondent but the officials of the appellant did not give any satisfactory reply and told the respondent to come after one week. It is further pleaded that after the lapse of one week, the respondent again contacted the officials of the appellants and requested them to remove the high voltage electric wires but the officials of the appellants flatly refused to remove the high voltage electric line/wires from the wall of the respondent. It was also pleaded that the above said high voltage 11 KV electric line was dangerous for the respondent as well as for the other persons residing their, because this high voltage wire had created hazards to the life and safety of the complainant and other persons. Due to these high tension wires, he was unable to further construction over his wall as well as he was unable to make the plaster of cement on the above said wall. Alleging deficiency in service, the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking directions to the appellants to remove the high tension wires from the wall of the respondent. Compensation and Costs were also prayed.
4. Upon notice, the appellants filed written statement therein it was admitted that the respondent had an electric connection No. AD29/1073 WK which was released by the appellants. It was, however, pleaded that the appellants are bound by the law to provide electricity to its consumers and for this purpose they had to fix and place, poles, wires, wall brackets, stays, apparatus and appliances for transmission and distribution of electricity and same is covered under Electricity Supply Act and also under Indian Telegraph F. A. No. 5 of 2006 3 Act. It was also pleaded that double insulating cable, and not bare wires, had been used keeping in view the safety measures as provided under the rules.
5. The respondent filed his own affidavit as Ex. C-1 and placed on record copy of the electricity bills cum receipts as Ex. R-2 whereas the appellants filed the affidavit of Sh. H.S.Aulakh SDO, PSEB Kandhala Jattan Sub-Division and proved document Ex. R-2.
6. The learned District Forum, after going through the pleading of the parties and evidence brought on record, accepted the complaint and directed the appellants to remove hooks and wires from the wall of the respondent and may fix same after installing the pole outside the boundary wall of the respondent. Rs 500/- were also awarded as litigation charges.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellants have the powers to place lines/cables as authorized under Indian Electricity Act as well as Indian Telegraph Act and that the present complaint, against affixing of the cable on his wall, did not, at all, pertain to electricity being supplied to the respondent and thus he did not have locus standi to file the complaint even if he was the consumer of the appellant and submitted that appeal be accepted. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appeal be dismissed.
8. Submissions have been heard record has been perused.
9. The admitted fact of the case is that the appellant had released connection No. AD29/1073 WK in the name of the respondent for the supply of electricity to his premises. The respondent has contended that as the electricity connection had been released to him by the appellants and he is making payments of the electricity bills issued to him regularly for the consumption of the electricity, therefore, he was the 'consumer' of the appellant. F. A. No. 5 of 2006 4
10. No doubt, the appellant has a relation with the respondent as consumer for the purpose of supply of electricity under the agreement executed between the parties but the present complaint does not relate to the said agreement under which the respondent had availed the services of the appellant for supply of electricity to his premises. The respondent has objected to the placing of electricity cable/wires by the appellants along his wall, which is used for giving supply to the other consumers of the appellants. It is not the case of the respondent that this said cable/wires are in anyway used for the supply of electricity to his house against connection No. AD 29/1073-WK. In this regard the Section 2(1) (d) (ii) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short "The Act") relating to the definition of 'consumer' is reproduced as under:-
"Consumer" means any person who--
2 (d) (ii) Hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly pad and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [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 {but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes.
11. Careful perusal of this provision reveals that 'the consumer" is a person who avails any service for consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised. Evidently, the respondent has availed services of the appellant for the purpose of supply of electricity to his premises only and therefore he is consumer of the appellant qua services relating to supply of electricity to his premises against connection No. AD29/1073-WK.
F. A. No. 5 of 20065
12. In order to see whether the present complaint of the respondent falls within the meaning of "complaint", relevant Section 2(c) of 'the Act' is reproduced as below:-
"complaint" means any allegation in writing made by a complainant that-
(1) an unfair trade practice or a restrictive trade practice has been adopted by [any trader or service provider]
(ii) [the goods bought by him or agreed to be bought by him] suffer from one or more defects;
(iii) [the services hired or availed of or agreed to be hired or availed of by him] suffer from deficiency in any respect;
Since the respondent has not pointed out in his complaint whether the services hired by him suffer from deficiency in any respect, therefore same is not covered in the definition of complaint.
13. The respondent has alleged 'deficiency' in service on the part of the applicant, but Section 2 (g) of the Act defines "deficiency' as under
(g) "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
Obviously the deficiency alleged by the respondent in his complaint is neither performed in pursuance of 'a contract' nor it is 'in relation' to any service hired by him.
14. In view of the discussion, we are of the view that the present complaint of the respondent is not maintainable under the Act because it does not, in any way, pertain to services hired by the respondent and respondent is not a consumer qua the present complaint. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is accepted and the order of the District Forum is set aside. Consequently compliant of the respondent is dismissed. F. A. No. 5 of 2006 6
15. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 250/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount of Rs. 250/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
16. Remaining amount as per the order of learned District Forum shall be paid by the respondent to the appellant within 2 month from the date of receipt of the copy.
17. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 7.6.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
18. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Justice S.N.Aggarwal)
President
(Mrs.Amarpreet Sharma)
Member
June 10, 2011 (Baldev Singh Sekhon)
amit Member