National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Sushil Kumar Marwah vs Npcl on 4 April, 2024
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI CONSUMER CASE NO. 318 OF 2020 1. SUSHIL KUMAR MARWAH A44h, DDA Flats,
Munirka, NEW DELHI - 110 067 ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. NPCL Commercial Complex,
1st Ave, Pocket H,
Sector Alpha II,
Greater Noida, UTTAR PRADESH - 201 310 ...........Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH,MEMBER
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : MR. RAKESH RAUSHAN, ADVOCATE FOR THE OPP. PARTY : MR. ANIL DUTT, ADVOCATE
MR. TEN ZEN TASHI NEGI, ADVOCATE.
Dated : 04 April 2024 ORDER
JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER
This Complaint has been filed against the Noida Power Company Ltd. under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, alleging deficiency in service, and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, and seeking compensation along with restoration of electricity supply.
2. The factual background, in brief, is that the Complainant entered into an electricity agreement with the Opposite Party, securing a 5 HP load connection for his factory located at 'G-15, Site V, Kasna, Greater Noida' from 20.09.2004 onwards. However, a significant portion of the period between 25.02.2010 to 20.02.2020 witnessed extensive interruptions in the factory's power supply, except for a brief operational window between October 2015 and November 2016. This extended downtime substantially affected the factory's operations and productivity. The conflict went beyond mere power outages and escalated into a protracted dispute concerning billing irregularities. The Complainant alleged that the discrepancies in billing practices commenced with the first bill in November 2015 and persisted through subsequent bills, notably the final one issued in October 2016. The Opposite Party purportedly demanded payment at an exorbitant rate of Rs. 119.54/- per unit, significantly exceeding the standard rate of less than Rs. 10/- per unit. The situation was compounded by an attempted load upgrade to 15 HP on 25.02.2010. Despite the Complainant fulfilling the requisite criteria and paying the security deposit, the Opposite Party failed to install the new meter or facilitate the anticipated enhanced connection. Instead, the dispute further intensified with the generation of irregular bills against the supposedly closed old account, exacerbating the existing conflict. Legal measures were undertaken as the Complainant sought redressal through multiple channels. He lodged formal complaints with various authorities, including the Vidyut Lokpal, Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF), and actively participated in a District Legal Services Authority Lok Adalat. Regrettably, these interventions failed to yield the anticipated or desired resolutions, thereby prolonging the ongoing dispute. The financial repercussions of the persistent power disruptions were substantial. The Complainant estimated daily losses at an alarming rate of Rs. 18,000/- since 26.02.2014, attributing this considerable financial setback to the enforced inactivity of the factory, encompassing the costs of labour, material, and machinery expenses. The intricacies and severity of this conflict emphasize the pressing need for a fair and expeditious resolution, coupled with appropriate compensation to alleviate the profound losses and disruptions experienced by the Complainant's industrial operations. In pursuit of adequate compensation for the extensive losses incurred and the imperative restoration of an uninterrupted electricity supply to his factory, he filed his Complaint before this Commission.
3. In the light of his aforesaid averments, the Complainant has prayed as follows -
"1. Respondent NPCL to place on record meter report prepared by their meter department the complaint of which has been made by the consumer before Hon'ble Vidyut Lokpal vide complaint dated 25-11-2016 with copy to CEO of NPCL(Enclosures vide pages no. 112 to 116);
2. Rupees 96755.27 (Rupees ninety six thousand seven hundred and fifty five only) Consumer claim a sum of Rupees 96755.27(Rupees ninety six thousand seven hundred and fifty five only) as per details given in Tables F,G,H-To rectify the bills issued from first bill of November 2015 up to final bill of Rs. 109288 issued for October 2016 for consumption of 1523 units and instead prepare final bill with reading of 1671 units of actual consumption of electricity from date of energization of meter to its disconnection as per the meter report prepared by NPCL and To withdraw all the arbitrarily issued bills [Refer Tables F,G,H];
3. Rs. 31608000/- ( Rupees three crores sixteen lacs and eight thousand only) Consumer claim a sum of rs. 31608000/-( Rupees three crores sixteen lacs and eight thousand only) on a/c of loss occurred to him because of idling of factory, men, material, machinery due to erroneous billing, its non- rectification, erroneous disconnection and coercing consumer to withdraw his claims as a precondition for restoration of electric connection and rectification of bills. (Refer details given in Table 'I');
4. Rs.28,94,000 (Rupees twenty eight lacs ninety four thousand only) Consumer claim a sum of Rs.28,94,000 Rupees twenty eight lacs ninety four thousand only on account of security charges without doing any work in the absence of electric connection; which has been disconnected due to erroneous billing, its non-rectification, erroneous disconnection and coercing consumer to withdraw his claims as a precondition for restoration of electric connection and rectification of bills. (Refer details given in Table 'J');
5. Rs. 3.655 lacs(Rupees three lacs sixty five thousand five hundred only) Consumer claim a sum of Rs. 3.655 lacs on a/c of redundancy of the fire fighting facility installed at the factory for any potential internal/external use along with huge underground water tank of seventy thousand liters capacity for which no objection certificate has also been given by the fire-fighting department Loss due to Early aging of facility without electricity;
6. The connection is disconnected since October 2016, to restore the electric connection at site;
7. To withdraw all arbitrary bills by the respondent.
4. The Opposite Party filed Reply to resist the present Complaint. It has, at the outset, denied all material averments made in the Complaint and has raised the following main objections -
a. That the Complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protect Act as the connection was availed by the Complainant for industrial/manufacturing purpose. Further, in order to obtain the subject connection, the Complainant had submitted an Application Form for requisition of supply of energy in February 2010, Under Point No. 7 of which, the 'purpose of supply' was mentioned as 'Industrial';
b. That admittedly the subject connection was obtained by the Complainant for his factory premises i.e. 'G15, Site V, Kasna Industrial Area, UPSIDC, Greater Noida, GB Nagar, Uttar Pradesh', and the electricity connection was energized by the Opposite Party under LMV-6 (Small & Medium Power) Category for industrial purposes.
c. That the conduct of the Complainant vis-à-vis the proceedings before the CGRF and the Electricity Ombudsman would itself indicate that his claims are flimsy and untenable. The Complainant first filed his Complaint before the CGRF, and during its proceedings remained wilfully absent on several dates despite issuance of notice. The CGRF then issued a last notice in the interest of justice for the date 06.10.2020, but the Complainant remained absent on that date as well. During pendency of those proceedings, the present Complaint was filed on 26.02.2020, while CGRF disposed off the case on 27.08.2021 after noting that the dispute was being mutually settled;
d. That the proceedings before the Ombudsman resulted in the dismissal of the Complaint on the ground that the Complainant was not pursuing his complaint with due diligence. The Complainant had launched proceedings before at least three different Fora on the same cause of action, which is indicative of the fact that he is a habitual litigant engaged in forum shopping;
e. That the Complainant has abandoned his claim for compensation, since in his complaint filed before the CGRF, he had alleged deficiency of service and sought compensation for the same. He has also sought compensation from this Commission praying for similar reliefs. The CGRF had disposed off his complaint in terms of the settlement between the parties noting that the grievances of the Complainant stood settled, which was not challenged by him before any appropriate forum and thus has attained finality for all intents and purposes. Consequently, according to the Opposite Parties, the Complainant has relinquished his claim for compensation based on the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Party;
f. That the Complaint is barred by limitation since the cause of action to file the same arose at the time of the issuance of the alleged inflated bills and the alleged disconnection of electricity, i.e. during the period of 2014-2016. The Complainant failed to approach this Hon'ble Commission within a period of 2 years without any application for condonation of delay, and consequently the present Complaint is time barred;
g. That the Complainant did not follow the procedure regarding incorrect bills as prescribed under Clause 6.5 of the U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005 issued by the UP Electricity Regulatory Commission under Section 50 of the Electricity Act, 2003; Under the said Clause, when the accuracy of a bill is disputed by a consumer and such dispute is of a pecuniary nature, then the consumer has to deposit, under protest, the amounts specified in Clause 6.5(b) of the 2005 Code. Only after such an amount has been deposited, the representation disputing the bill can be entertained.
5. We have extensively heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and the Opposite Party, and perused the material available on record.
6. During the course of hearing, it has been vehemently contended on behalf of the Opposite Party that the Complaint was liable to be dismissed not only because the Complainant cannot be regarded as a 'Consumer' within the meaning of 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, since from his own pleadings, the electricity supplied/to be supplied to him was to be used for his commercial establishment/factory from where finished products were to be manufactured, and thereafter sold for generating profits. Also, the Opposite Party had argued that the complaint per se was liable to be dismissed as being barred by limitation since the cause of action for filing the same had arisen long back in the year 2010, and had since already ended in the interregnum.
7. Consequently, on 21.8.2023 when the matter was at the stage of Final Hearing, we directed the Complainant to furnish an Affidavit specifying his answers to the following questions raised by us -
"1. Whether or not the electrical supply from the opposite party was actually used for running the machines in the complainant's factory for the purpose of manufacturing of finished products?
2. Specify the dates of his cause of action firstly and lastly before filing of the present complaint?
3. Specify the period for which he claims the compensation on account of the alleged omissions/ deficiencies on the part of the opposite party, and how such period would be covered by limitation?
4. Explain how the compensation claim under various heads in the prayer portion of the complaint is not linked to the actual process of running the Factory/manufacturing of goods as the ultimate end?"
8. The Complainant has thereafter filed his Affidavit in compliance of the Order dated 13.10.2023. In relation to Question No. 1 noted above, he has given a cryptic answer, "That the electric supply from the opposite party has not been used for running the machines in the complainant's factory for the purpose of manufacturing of finished products."
9. In response to Question No. 2, the Complainant has not specified the date on which his cause of action firstly arose before filing of complaint, but has answered, "that the cause of action in the said matter is a continuing phenomenon till the relief is made." Thereafter, in the Affidavit he has made reference to several documents and dates extracted from the pleadings and has mentioned in great details various facts which run into as many as five full pages in legal size, even though he was required to only state the first and last dates constituting the cause of action prior to filing of the complaint.
10. In answer to Question No. 3 by us to the Complainant, to specify the period for which he claimed the compensation, and to explain how the same would be covered by limitation, the complete answer given by him is as follows -
"Answer- There has been no electricity at the deponent complainant's premises from 25-02-2010 to September 2015 for 67 months & November 2016 to 04-11-2020 for 48 months thus totalling 115 months on a/c of omissions/deficiencies at the end of respondent. Hence the deponent who is the complainant in the said matter claims the compensation for the period of 115 months as given below.
25-02-2010 to September 2015 67 months November 2016 to 04-11-2020 48 months"
11. In relation to the last question, vide which the Complainant was required to explain how the compensation claimed by him under various heads in the prayer portion of the complaint was not linked to the actual process of running the factory/ manufacturing of goods as the ultimate end, there is no clear cut explanation. On the other hand, the answer was that there was electrical supply only from October, 2015 to 2016 although it had been contracted to be given from 25.2.2010 onwards. Consequently, according to the Complainant, there was no supply for 67 months between 25.2.2010 to September, 2015, and again for 48 months from November, 2016 to 4.11.2020. The Complainant has furthermore stated in his Affidavit in answering the Question No. 4 that "....Deponent has been involved in inventing, designing, preparing drawings, making samples as per research and development of various energy efficient building components, standardizing the same as per the relevant code requirements; devising methods of operation, minimizing costs, mitigating risks, programming, standardization, optimization so as to minimize wastages in addition to total project consultancy in consonance to deponent's multi-talented educational and work experience background......" He has thereafter given a detailed Chart showing his academic and professional achievements including as many as 22 separate qualifications obtained by him from various Institutes and Universities. He has thereafter concluded his answer by giving "Alternate 1- Deponent has designed energy saving products with all the operations mentioned at Sr. No. iii for hotel The Oberoi, New Delhi, Wildflower Hall Shimla, Udaivilas Udaipur, Maidens Hotel Delhi, Hotel The Grand New Delhi, 33feet high glass curved facia for Delhi High Court New Building, glass gymnasiums and health clubs for Architect Hafeej Contractor, EPFO building at Wazirpur, Institute of Applied Manpower Research building at Narela, Hotel Claridges and various others. It is the estimated cost per day deponent was to make out of the consultancies from his clients with reasonable profit of around 10-12 percent". In addition, in his answer, he has also given a detailed "Alternate 2" claiming that for the alleged period of no electrical connection for a total of 3474 days for the period between 25.2.2010 to 4.11.2020, he had been deprived of rental income on his industrial plot @ Rs. 18,000/- per day, therefore coming to a loss of Rs. 6,25,32,000/- which however, he had limited to Rs. 3,16,08,000/- only.
12. Before considering the implications of the aforesaid statements given by the Complainant in his Affidavit, it would be appropriate to consider the decisions which have been relied upon from his side to assert that he actually happens to be a 'Consumer' even though the electricity connection was admittedly taken by him for running his "factory".
13. The main reliance is on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court "National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harsolia Motors and Ors, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 409", in which the Apex Court had dismissed the Civil Appeal No(s) 5352-5353 of 2007, which had been preferred against the order of this Commission by virtue of which the complaint of the original Complainant/Respondent was held to be maintainable, and it was found to be a 'Consumer' even though the Fire Insurance which was the subject matter of the complaint had been obtained by it for its business activity of sale of vehicles, and the Insurance Policy was for the office, showroom garage, machinery, etc. lying in its showroom premises. In holding that the Complainant was a 'Consumer', the Apex Court had observed inter alia -
"....32. It may be a case that a person who is engaged in commercial activities has purchased goods or availed of service for his personal use or consumption or for the personal use of a beneficiary and such purchase is not linked to their ordinary profits generating activities or for creation of self¬-employment, such a person may still claim to be a consumer and after discussion of various illustrations summarized the discussion after taking note of the broad principles that were culled out for determination whether the activity or transaction is for a commercial purpose, held as under:
"19. To summarise from the above discussion, though a strait jacket formula cannot be adopted in every case, the following broad principles can be culled out for determining whether an activity or transaction is "for a commercial purpose":
19.1. The question of whether a transaction is for a commercial purpose would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, ordinarily, "commercial purpose" is understood to include manufacturing/industrial activity or business¬-to-¬business transactions between commercial entities.
19.2. The purchase of the good or service should have a close and direct nexus with a profit--generating activity.
19.3. The identity of the person making the purchase or the value of the transaction is not conclusive to the question of whether it is for a commercial purpose. It has to be seen whether the dominant intention or dominant purpose for the transaction was to facilitate some kind of profit generation for the purchaser and/or their beneficiary.
19.4. If it is found that the dominant purpose behind purchasing the good or service was for the personal use and consumption of the purchaser and/or their beneficiary, or is otherwise not linked to any commercial activity, the question of whether such a purchase was for the purpose of "generating livelihood by means of self-¬employment" need not be looked into."
14. Similarly, in "Sunil Kohli & Anr. Vs. Purearth Infrastructure Ltd. (2020) 12 SCC 235", the complaint of the Appellants was held to be maintainable when the main Complainant had entered into a transaction for purchasing a commercial premises, in view of his contention that he wanted to dispose off his property in Denmark, come to Delhi and start a business for which purpose the premises in question was booked, and it was found that he was not gainfully employed any more in Denmark and was serving in the Red Cross which is a Charitable organisation. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard were as follows -
"....13. As laid down by this Court in Laxmi Engineering Works, the explanation to Section 2(1)(d) of the Act clarifies that "in certain situations, purchase of goods for "commercial purpose" would not yet take the purchaser out of the definition of expression 'consumer'. If the commercial use is by the purchaser himself for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, such purchaser of goods is yet a 'consumer'". This Court went on to observe that what is "Commercial Purpose" is a question of fact to be decided in the facts of each case.....
15. The issue therefore is whether the evidence on record is suggestive or indicative of the fact that the premises in question were booked by the complainants with the intention of self-employment or self-use.
16. The affidavit of evidence as quoted above clearly points that the complainants wanted to dispose of the property in Denmark and wanted to come down to Delhi to start a business. It is for this purpose that the premises in question were booked. The evidence also discloses that the Complainant no.1 was not employed any more in Denmark and as a matter of fact, he was serving Red Cross, a charitable organization. In the circumstances, it cannot be ruled that the case of the Complainants would not come within the definition of "consumer" as defined under the provisions of the Act."
15. Again, in "Metco Export International Vs. Federal Bank Ltd. And Ors., FA No. 42 of 2014, dated 6.2.2018", the complaint had been filed by an Expert Unit which had exported Sesame Seeds abroad, which could not be received by the purchaser as the documents entrusted to the Complainant's Banker were lost and did not reach the other side through its Banker, resulting in commercial loss to the Complainant. This Commission had observed inter alia -
"....11. The State Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant herein on the ground that the complainant was not a 'consumer' as he had availed the services of the OPs for commercial purpose. Hence, the basic question to be decided in the present appeal is whether the appellant is a 'consumer' or not as per the definition given in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Clearly as per Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the banking services are covered under the Consumer Protection Act. The landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG industrial Institute, (1995) 3 SCC 583 states that the commercial purpose shall depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Here the services of the bank related to forwarding of certain documents to a particular destination i.e. the buyer. It is clear that availing of this service is not an activity directly leading to profit......
12. From the above judgments of this Commission, it is clear that for commercial purpose, generation of profit from the goods purchased or services availed would be the main criterion and it should be seen whether the complainant is engaged in regular trading of the goods so purchased or of the services availed. It is clear that dispatch of papers by the Bank per se is not going to generate any profit to the complainant as the actual profit will come from the dispatch and sale of the exported goods. Therefore, by taking a wider view of the matter, it is held that the complainant/appellant is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986."
16. Per Contra, the Opposite Party has asserted that the Complainant is not a 'Consumer' since it is well-settled that persons having electrical connection for industrial/commercial purpose do not fall within the meaning of 'Consumer' under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. A number of decisions have been relied upon by the Opposite Party in this regard.
17. In "Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. And Os. Vs. Anis Ahmad (2013) 8 SCC 491", the Hon'ble Supreme Court had set aside the decision of this Commission in Complaints filed by persons who had obtained electricity connection for industrial/commercial purposes and thereafter alleged deficiency in providing the service. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its Order had observed inter alia -
"34. From the facts narrated in the preceding paragraph it is clear that Anis Ahmad, Rakhi Ghosh, Prithvi Pal Singh, Zulfikar, Shahzadey Alam, Atul Kumar Gupta, Tauseef Ahmed and Mohd. Yunus had electrical connections for industrial/ commercial purpose and, therefore, they do not come within the meaning of "consumer" as defined under Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; they cannot be treated as "complainant" nor are they entitled to file any "complaint" before the Consumer Forum."
18. In "Sheetla Granite Daharra Kabrai through its Partner Vs. Dakshinanchal Vidhyut Vitran Nigal Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine NCDRC 75", this Commission had dismissed the Appeal filed on behalf of the Complainant which had similarly obtained electricity connection for commercial purpose to run its machine for crushing stones. The State Commission had dismissed the complaint by holding that the Complainant was not a 'Consumer'. A Bench of two Hon'ble Members of this Commission, comprising Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member and Mr. Dinesh Singh, Member, thereafter dismissed the FA No. 1439 of 2018 affirming the decision of the State Commission by observing that the Complainant could not be regarded as a 'Consumer'. Both the Hon'ble Members had recorded their observations in this regard as follows -
"S.M. KANTIKAR, PRESIDING MEMBER-
.....6. Multiplication factor of energy meters is a very important ingredient in the calculation of actual energy consumed. The OP had mistakenly calculated the bill on the basis of MF-2 when it was to be calculated on the basis of MF-4. So, the OP is entitled to the remaining amount. Moreover, it is seen that the complainant is not a consumer. The complainant, being a firm having partners and doing the job of crushing of rocks through a machine cannot be taken to be self- employed and doing it for livelihood. The Consumer Protect Act , 1986 specifically only excludes persons who buy goods exclusively for the purpose of earning their livelihood , by means of self- employment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paramount Digital Colour Lab v. Agfa India Private Limited, as reported in III (2018) CPJ 12 (SC) held that the Court has to look at the dominant purpose for which the purchase is made in order to decide whether it was for a 'commercial purpose'. In the present matter, electricity was taken from the OP to run the machine for crushing the rocks. The firm was run to procure profit. This prima facie shows that the complainant was undertaking a commercial activity. 7. On the basis of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the complainant is not a 'consumer' as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, the present appeal is dismissed.
DINESH SINGH, MEMBER -
......13. A bland averment in the complaint, loosely articulated in the language of the Explanation to section 2 (1) (d), as has been made by the complainant firm in the instant case, is not sufficient to hold a person as 'consumer', when the facts speak otherwise. The averment has to be clear and categorical, and, in a case of the present specificities, has to be established through facts, which onus the complainant firm has failed to discharge.
14. The State Commission has passed a well-appraised and well-reasoned Order, and rightly determined that the complainant firm is not a 'consumer' within the meaning of section (2) (1) (d) of the Act 1986."
19. Having thus carefully considered the entire material on record, and the answers given by the complainant to our specific questions raised on 21.8.2023, we are of the opinion that the present complaint is bereft of any substantive merits. We say so because, firstly, from the own case of the complainant, electric supply to his factory was withheld for a period of more than 5½ years between February, 2010 to September, 2015, after which it was temporarily restored till November 2016, and after which, it was again disconnected for a continuous period of four years before filing of the complaint. Since his supply had admittedly been resumed in September, 2015, any claim for compensation during that period was therefore, liable to be filed within two years from such restoration. But the complaint was filed five years later. That part of the claim therefore, would appear to be clearly time barred.
20. Besides, it is the own explicit averment of the complainant that electric supply was obtained by him for his industrial unit/factory. Consequently, he cannot be considered a 'consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation" (supra), in which the persons who had electrical connections for industrial purpose were not treated to be those within the meaning of "Consumers" as so defined, which was also the view of this Commission in "Sheetla Granite" (supra).
21. It is note-worthy that in none of the citations relied upon by the petitioner namely "National Insurance Co. Vs. Harsolia Motors" or "Sunil Kohli Vs. Pure Earth Infrastructure Limited" or "Metco Vs. Federal Bank Ltd." (supra), the complainant had obtained electrical supply for commercial purpose as the service provided by the concerned Opposite Parties. Even by the own calculation and description of loss such as by way of the unit having remained shut down due to non supply of electricity, recurring expenses for its maintenance such as by way of retaining the security personnel within the concerned premises etc. and the extent and magnitude of the total claim raised (which the Complainant claims to have substantially limited by himself) and which runs into several crores, convince us that this is not a case in which the complainant can be legitimately considered as a 'Consumer', especially in view of the fact that there was not even an averment in his original complaint that the factory for which he had taken the electricity connection was his only source of livelihood, since it transpires from the material placed on behalf of the Opposite Party, that the complainant also happens to be a Partner in the Company/Firm "LA NORME Consultancy Services LLP", which entity was created on 2.4.2018 i.e. much before filing of the present complaint. So it cannot be said that user of the electricity for the factory/industry of the Complainant is his "only source of livelihood", and instead of even taking such plea in his complaint, running into as many as 45 pages, the same only starts with the averment, "that the said complaint pertains to huge losses incurred by the Complainant for his factory at "G-15, Site V, Kasna Industrial Area, Greater Noida".
22. It is also his own case that prior to filing of this Complaint in the year 2020, the Complainant had approached various Fora against the Opposite Party such as Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF), Greater Noida under Section 45 (5) of the Electricity Act. The aforesaid complaint was decided during the pendency of the present Complaint. He thereafter filed a second complaint before the Ombudsman in April, 2019 which was decided on 24.9.2019. He then also approached the District Legal Service Authority for redressal of his grievances in the year 2018 apart from filing another complaint against the Opposite Party before the Directorate on 27.3.2019 which were still pending at the time of filing the present Complaint. So, the contention of the Opposite Party that the present complaint is also a speculative proceeding resorted to by the Complainant, who has been on a spree of Forum shopping all along and seeks redressal of his grievances such as non-supply of electricity, several years before filing of this Complaint, cannot be discarded.
23. Even otherwise, while the Complainant in Prayer No. 6 & 7 of his complaint sought for restoration of his electricity connection, with a direction upon the Opposite Parties to "withdraw all arbitrary bills", the fact that he has not followed the prescribed procedure requiring him to deposit under protest, the amounts specified in terms of Clause 6.5 of U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005, also makes his claim untenable.
24. For all the aforesaid detailed reasons, we find no merit in this Complaint which is accordingly dismissed without costs.
25. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.
......................................J SUDIP AHLUWALIA PRESIDING MEMBER ................................................ DR. INDER JIT SINGH MEMBER