National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited & ... vs Satyanarayan Sharma on 18 April, 2023
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 1448 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 04/10/2016 in Complaint No. 70/2015 of the State Commission Rajasthan) 1. JAIPUR VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED & ANR. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. SATYANARAYAN SHARMA S/o Shri Govind Narayan sharma, R/o B-17,Jadon Nagar, Durgapura, Jaipur Rajasthan ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Appellant : Mr. S. N. Bohra, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr Satya Nrayan Sharma in person
Dated : 18 Apr 2023 ORDER
Justice Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member
This order shall dispose of Appeal No.1448 of 2016 filed against the order dated 04.10.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (for short "the State Commission") in Complaint No.70 of 2015 filed by the Respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the Complainant").
2. The brief facts, as narrated by the Complainant in his Complaint, are that his father Govind Narayan Sharma had taken a 5 HP electrical connection on his agricultural land khasra no.465, Bandawalon Ki Dhani, Mohanpura Bassi. The old registration number of the connection was 25.2.232 and later on it was converted to 1502/127. In 1993, the electric wire of 6 poles was stolen by someone and this resulted in disconnection of the said connection and an intimation to this effect was sent on 12.08.1993 by his father to the concerned electrical department and he had been duly pursuing it. Despite that the line was not restored. Again on 29.04.2000, an application reporting the theft of the electrical line and request for laying fresh line was made to the concerned electrical department and he also deposited ₹112/-. He was assured that needful would be done. Subsequently, the concerned department issued direction to restore the said connection but that order was not complied with. His father again wrote a letter dated 16.08.2001. A letter dated 15.07.2004 was received from concerned department on 27.07.2004 confirming the restoration of the electricity supply. However, the concerned department raised certain objections and also asked to file documents showing the latest khatedari rights. It is contended that the related jamabandi was deposited with the concerned department on 28.07.2004. Despite repeated contacts to the concerned department and sending legal notice, the electricity connection was not restored. Ultimately, the Complainant who is son of Govind Narain Sharma in whose name the electricity connection existed filed the Complaint requesting for restoration of the connection and also claimed compensation.
3. The claim was contested by the Appellant. Preliminary objection taken by the Appellant is that the Complainant was not a consumer and had no locus standi to file the Complaint. It was submitted that the connection was given to his father Govind Narayan Sharma and it was disconnected on his request 22 years ago. The Complainant had applied another connection under the scheme of the Government, i.e. Bund Bund Sinchai Yojana. It was further submitted that except the letter dated 12.08.1993, no other request letter had been received from Govind Narayan Sharma. It was further submitted that after the demise of his father, the Complainant had never applied for transfer of the said connection in his name. It is submitted that since the connection still remains in the name of Govind Narayan Sharma, who is now dead, the connection cannot be restored in the name of a dead person. It was submitted that the Complaint was liable to be dismissed.
4. Parties led their evidences before the State Commission. The State Commission after hearing the arguments of learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the record, allowed the Complaint and issued the following directions:
"In view of the above the complaint is allowed. The non-applicants are directed to restore the supply of electricity within one month and shall also pay a sum of ₹50,000/- to the complainant as compensation and ₹5,000/- as cost of proceedings within the stipulated period of one month failing which this amount will carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of this order."
5. This order is impugned by the Appellant. It is submitted that the State Commission has not given its finding on the contention raised by the Appellant in their written version that the Complainant is not a consumer as he did not seek transfer of the connection in his name nor he had applied for said transfer. It is further argued that he did not come before this Commission with clean hands. It is submitted that the Complainant has nowhere disclosed about the date of demise of his father. He has also filed a jamabandi which clearly shows that khasra no.465, for which the connection no.1520/127 was issued, does not stand in his name, moreso the said khasra has been mortgaged to the Bank. On these contentions, it is submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
6. The Respondent/Complainant has also argued the matter and has furnished written synopsises. It is argued that the State Commission has rightly observed that the Appellant has failed to prove the contention that the connection had been disconnected on the request of the father of the Complainant 22 years ago. It is not disputed that under a separate scheme of the Government, the Complainant had applied for a new connection under Bund Bund Sinchai Yojana on 21.03.2014. It is submitted that the State Commission has rightly observed that the Appellant had failed to supply the electricity despite repeated requests.
7. I have heard the arguments and perused the relevant record.
8. The admitted facts of the case are that the connection no.1520/127 was allotted to Govind Narayan Sharma at khasra no.465 Bandawalon Ki Dhani, Bassi. It is also an admitted fact that since 1993 the said connection had remained disconnected due to the theft of the electric line which was supplying the electricity to the said electric connection. It is also apparent from the record that this Complaint has not been filed by the father of the Complainant in whose name the connection had been approved. It is also a fact that the Complainant had never applied for transfer of the said connection in his name. He wants restoration of the electric supply to that connection and seeks an order to this effect. For this purpose he has filed the present Complaint and it is apparent that no Complaint had been filed by his father during his lifetime since 1993 till his demise. The Complainant is surreptitiously silent about the date of death of his father in his Complaint. Why he has concealed this fact is not disclosed by him.
9. An issue has been raised by the Appellant that the Complainant is not a consumer. Reliance has been placed on the findings of this Commission in Hari Prasad vs. Mu. H. B. V. N. L. Panchkula & Ors., I (2010) CPJ 104 (NC) (para 8).
10. The expression "consumer" has been defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The definition reads as under:
"2. Definitions. - (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
XXXXXXXXXXX (d) "consumer" means any person who-- (i) XXXXXXXXX
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid 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;
Explanation.-- For the purposes of this clause, "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment;"
11. From the facts on record, it is apparent that the Complainant had neither hired nor availed services of the Appellant qua the subject electrical connection. The services of the Appellant were hired by his father. It is also apparent that such services were not hired by his father for the benefit of the Complainant and he had hired it for his own purpose and use. The Complainant therefore, cannot be termed as a beneficiary of the services availed by his father from the Appellant. He does not, therefore, falls in the category of 'consumer' as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act. More so the electric connection in the name of the father of the Complainant was issued for khasra no.465. A jamabandi for the said khasra has been placed on record. Name of the Complainant nowhere appears in that jamabandi. This jamabandi shows that khasra no.465 is in the name of some third person who had mortgaged this property to the Bank. For this reason also, the present Complainant cannot be termed as consumer as he wants restoration of the electric supply to a connection which exists now in the land of some other party and he is not owner of the land on which that connection allegedly existed. It is also apparent that as per the rules and regulations governing the Appellant, a connection cannot be restored in the name of a dead person.
12. For the reasons discussed above, it is apparent that the order of the State Commission suffers with perversity and illegality and is liable to be set aside. The impugned order, therefore, is set aside and the Complaint stands dismissed.
......................J DEEPA SHARMA PRESIDING MEMBER