State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mseb ,Chairman ... vs Shamsundar S Jaipuriya on 7 January, 2015
1/4
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MAHARASHTRA NAGPUR CIRCUIT BENCH
NAGPUR
First Appeal No. A/03/483
(Arisen out of Order Dated 07/02/2003 in Case No. CC/01/426 of District Forum,
Yavatmal.)
1. Maharashtra State Electricity Board,
Represented through Chairman Prakashgad,
Bandra (East) Mumbai-400051.
2. Maharashtra State Electricity Board,
Through Superintending Engineer,
Yavatmal Circle, Arni Road, Yavatmal. ...........Appellant(s)
Versus
Shamsundar S. Jaipuriya,
Prop. Sati Oil Mill, Pimpalgaon Road,
Yavatmal, District Yavatmal. ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'ABLE MR. B.A.Shaikh PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. S.B.SAWARKAR MEMBER
For the Appellant: Adv. Mr. Baisani
For the Respondent: None
ORDER
(Delivered 07/01/2015) PER SHRI B.A. SHAIKH, HON'BLE PRESIDING MEMBER.
1. This appeal is preferred by the original opposite party Nos. 1&2 (to be referred as appellants) against the order dated 07/02/2003, passed in consumer complaint No. 426/2001, by the District Forum, Yavatmal, by which complaint has been partly allowed.
2. The respondent herein had filed a complaint alleging in brief that he had obtained electric connection from the appellants to run oil mill in the name and style as "Sati Oil Mill" for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self 2/4 employment. Appellants were in habit of raising bills including unbelievable charges which were required to be corrected on an often. The appellants tried to present bill dated 10/08/200 to the respondent on 17/08/2000 and it was refused by the respondent as it was delayed. The said bill was then sent to post to him on 18/08/2000. The respondent could have paid that bill within 7 days i.e. from 18/08/2000 to 25/08/2000. However, the appellants disconnected the electric supply of the respondent on 21/08/2000. Moreover, Rs. 745/- were shown in the bill dated 10/08/2000 illegally which was corrected by the appellants on 02/09/2000. The appellants also recovered Rs.50/- from the respondent towards reconnection charges. The disconnection of the electric supply of the respondent by the appellants was illegal as the disconnection was made without 7 days notice under section 24(1) of Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Moreover, the appellant also recovered excess amount of Rs.7,560/- which is also to be refunded with interest. The respondent is also entitled to compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- due to loss sustained by him on account of disconnection of electric supply. The respondent thus claimed compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- with further compensation of Rs.5000/- per day for the period of 13 days and also refund of Rs.7,560/- with interest and further compensation of Rs.75,000/- towards physical and mental harassment. The respondent thus claimed total Rs.4,99,425/- from the appellants.
3. The said complaint was resisted by the appellants by filing written version and denied all the allegations made in the complaint. It is submitted by them that the respondent refused to take the bill and therefore, there is no fault on the part of the appellants and therefore, they prayed that complaint may be dismissed.
4. The District Forum after hearing both the parties and considering the evidence brought on record came to the conclusion that it was the illegality on the part of the appellants to disconnect the electric supply when the last date of payment of bill was 25/08/2000 and the electric supply was disconnected on 3/4 21/08/2000. Therefore, the District Forum directed the appellants to pay compensation of Rs.1000/- per day i.e. total Rs.13,000/- for the period of 13 days during which the electric supply was disconnected and also to refund reconnection charges of Rs.50/- and to pay further compensation of Rs.5000/- towards mental and physical harassment and Rs.500/- towards cost of the proceeding.
5. We have heard learned advocate of the appellants. The respondent failed to appear before this Commission though duly served with notice. H relied on observations made in the following two cases in support of his submission that the respondent was not a consumer since he used electricity for commercial purpose.
i. Farmers Poultry Breeding Farm Vs. Punjab State Power Corpn. Ltd., II (2011) CPJ 2002 (NC) ii. Mohammad Haseeb Ahmad Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board and others, 2010 CTJ 886(CP) (NCDRC).
In both the cases electricity was obtained for commercial purpose and it is held that the complainant is not a consumer. The learned Advocate of the appellants submitted that as the respondent was not a consumer the Forum erred in entertaining the complaint and partly allowing it. He further submitted that the bill issued to the respondent was refused and therefore report dated 17/08/2000 submitted to the appellants to that effect by the surveyor of the bill, cannot be disbelieved and hence, the disconnection of the electricity on that ground is legal.
6. So far as question of maintainability of complaint is concerned we find that the electricity connection was obtained purely for commercial purpose. The respondent has not explained as to how much money he earned by using electricity. On the contrary he claimed loss of Rs.5000/- per day due to electric disconnection. It means that he was earning Rs. 60,000/- per month by use of 4/4 electricity. The said income cannot be said to be only for maintaining livelihood of the respondent. Hence, it is clear from said monthly income of the respondent that he had obtained electric connection for commercial purpose to earn profit and hence he is not consumer as defined U/s. 2(1)(d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable.
7. Moreover, admittedly the respondent refused to take the bill from the appellant which showed that he was not interested in payment of that bill. Hence, the appellant was right in disconnecting the electric supply. Therefore, we hold that the disconnection of the electric supply cannot be considered to deficiency in the service on the part of the appellants. The District Forum below thus erred in entertaining the complaint and partly allowing it. The impugned order thus deserves to be set aside.
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed.
ii. The impugned order dated 07/02/2003, passed in consumer complaint
No. 426/2001 by the District Forum, Yavatmal, is hereby set aside. iii. The complaint is dismissed.
iv. No order as to cost in appeal.
v. Copy of the order be furnished to both the parties free of cost
[HON'ABLE MR. B.A.Shaikh]
PRESIDING MEMBER
[HON'BLE MR. S.B.SAWARKAR]
MEMBER
ay