State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mohammad Ali vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. on 1 July, 2015
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 373 of 2013
Date of institution: 3.4.2013
Date of Decision: 1.7.2015
Mohammad Ali son of Abdulla, resident of Arorawali Sarak, Near Tubewell
No. 5, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.
Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through
its Chairman/Secretary.
2. AEE, SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division,
City-II, Malerkotla.
Respondents/OPs
First Appeal against the order dated 27.2.2013
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : None.
For the respondents : Sh. Gurdeep Singh, Advocate for
Sh. R.S. Bains, Advocate
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
ORDER
First Appeal No. 373 of 2013 2 The appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as "the complainant") has filed the present appeal against the order dated 27.2.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (hereinafter referred as the District Forum) in consumer complaint No.332 dated 11.4.2011 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.
2. A consumer complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') against the respondents/OPs(hereinafter referred as OPs) on the averments that he had obtained the electric connection bearing A/c No. SP-47/555 from the Ops to run the Flour Mill, which he was running to earn his livelihood and was paying the bills issued by the Ops from time to time. However, the said meter was burnt due to electric shock. The complainant made a complaint to the Ops. The officers of the Ops came to the premises and changed the meter. However, the old meter was not removed as per the instructions/rules of the Ops and the same was neither packed in the card board box nor his signatures were obtained at the time of removal. However, he received a memo No. 300 dated 6.4.2011 vide which he was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 62,244/- within a period of 7 days on the ground that the meter of the complainant was checked in M.E. Lab and that account of the complainant was overhauled for the last six months. However, there was no cause for overhauling the account. The meter of the complainant was not checked on 4.4.2011 in the M.E. Lab. He was not called for in the M.E. Lab before checking the meter, therefore, the said notice was wrong, illegal and liable to be withdrawn, First Appeal No. 373 of 2013 3 however, the Ops refused to withdraw this notice. Accordingly, the complaint was filed with a direction to the Ops to withdraw notice No. 300 dated 6.4.2011 asking for Rs. 62,244/-; the Ops be restrained to disconnect the connection or recovering the said amount till the decision of the complaint; pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs. 5500/- as litigation expenses.
3. The complaint was contested by the Ops, who filed written reply taking legal objections that the complaint was not maintainable as the complainant had not come to the Forum with clean hands; the complainant had no locus-standi to file the complaint as he was not a consumer of the Ops; the Hon'ble Forum had no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint as it involves the disputes regarding the tariff of the electricity charges and as per the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission in 129 1994(1) CPC "M/s Anand Cane Crusher Versus State Electricity Board" and 267 CPC 1994 (1) "Phool Chand Versus Bihar State Electricity Board", the matter does not come within the competency of the Consumer Fora and that the complainant had concealed the material facts from Hon'ble Forum. On merits, it was admitted that the complainant was having SP connection No. 47/555. The connection was being used for commercial purposes. The meter of the complainant had burnt and it was changed with a new one and old meter was packed in the card board box and sent to M.E. Lab, Sangrur. M.E. Lab sent a notice to the complainant to come present at M.E. Lab, Sangrur on 4.4.2011 at 11.30 and in his presence the meter was checked and it was found First Appeal No. 373 of 2013 4 that the meter was burnt badly. The M.E. seals were missing, accordingly, it was unfit for checking. Account of the complainant overhauled and accordingly, a notice dated 6.4.2011 asking him to deposit Rs. 62,244/- within a period of 7 days was issued, which is in accordance with the rules and regulations of the OPs, therefore, the complaint was without merit and it be dismissed.
4. The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.
5. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence notice Ex. C-1, receipt Ex. C-2, bills Exs. C-3 to C-12, affidavit of Mohammad Ali Ex. C-13. On the other hand, the Ops had tendered into evidence affidavit of Er. Abdul Sattar, AAE Ex. R-1, affidavit of Er. Lal Singh, J.E. Ex. R-2, affidavit of Er. Sanjay Mittal Ex. R-3, details of recovery Ex. R-4, notice dt. 1.4.11 Ex. R-5, challan Ex. R-6, checking report Ex. R-7, notice dt. 6.4.11 Ex. R-8.
6. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written reply filed by the OPs, evidence and documents brought on the record, the complaint was dismissed.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondents.
8. None was present on behalf of the appellant, however, we have gone through the grounds of appeal and record of the District Forum.
9. In the grounds of appeal, it has been contended that the findings of the District Forum are incorrect to the effect that the complainant had failed to produce evidence to the satisfaction of the Forum. Apart from that it is to be seen whether complainant is a First Appeal No. 373 of 2013 5 consumer of the Ops. It was pleaded that the connection in dispute was used to earn his livelihood. From the very nature of the connection, it is SP connection to run the Flour Mill, certainly, it is for commercial purposes. Under Section 2(1)(d)(i)&(ii), in case the connection was taken for commercial purposes, it does not come within the ambit of C.P. Act. However, in case the connection is used by the complainant to earn his livelihood for self employment then it is covered under the definition of consumer. In case we go through para No. 3(a) of the complaint, the complainant had submitted that he had obtained the electricity connection bearing A/c No. 47/555 from the Ops to run the Flour Mill, which the complainant was running to earn his livelihood. However, the specific word "for self employment" is missing from the complaint and similar is the plea taken by him in his affidavit Ex. C-13. Any evocation can be taken to earn the livelihood but the provision under the CP Act is not only to earn livelihood but it should be for 'self employment', however, the complaint as well as evidence on the record tendered by the complainant is silent with regard to running this business of Flour Mill for self employment i.e. the reason the learned District Forum has also given the observations that it has not been stated by the complainant whether he alone is working or some labourers have been employed to run that business. In the absence of any specific pleadings and evidence on the record that the business of the Flour Mill was being run by the complainant for his self employment, the complainant does not come within the definition of the consumer as defined under the CP Act. To support this point, there is latest judgment of the Hon'ble National First Appeal No. 373 of 2013 6 Commission I (2015) CPJ 326 (NC) "Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Sushil Gulati". In that case, the complainant used the bank transactions for commercial purpose and obtained the cash credit facility for running his business. Complainant nowhere mentioned in the complaint that he was carrying on business by means of self employment for earning livelihood, as such, the complainant is not 'consumer' under the CP Act. The counsel for the appellant was not available to counter this judgment and the pleadings and evidence on the record.
10. In view of these findings, we are of the opinion that the complainant does not come within the definition of the consumer. In case the complainant does not come within the definition of the consumer then no findings are required to be given on merits.
11. In view of the above, we do not see any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed in limine.
12. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 30.6.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
13. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran) Presiding Judicial Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member July 1, 2015. (Surinder Pal Kaur) as Member First Appeal No. 373 of 2013 7