National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Hotel Corp. Of India Ltd. vs Delhi Vidyut Board And Ors. on 23 February, 2006
Equivalent citations: III(2006)CPJ409(NC)
ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member)
1. Complaint has been filed, inter alia, alleging that complainant is running Centaur Hotel, New Delhi. Due to frequent breakdown in power supply to the hotel as a result of numerous joints in HT Cable, the complainant company approached Delhi Vidyut Board/ opposite party No. 1 which agreed to provide direct 11 KV O/H cum U/G feeder dedicated to the said hotel from Bijwasan Grid. By the letter dated the 2.4.1998 O.P. No. 1 asked the complainant to deposit amount of Rs. 67,56,825 for carrying out the work. By letter dated 20.7.1998 the O.P. No. 1 demanded a further sum of Rs. 5,000. Cheque for these two amounts were given to O.P. No. 1 on 24.9.1998 by the complainant. Complainant was assured that the work will be completed on or before 7.2.1999. By the letter dated 15.6.1999, O.P. No. 1 revised the estimate to Rs. 69,64,975 and asked the complainant to further deposit amount of Rs. 2,31,150 which the complainant sent through a cheque dated 8.12.1999 to O.P. No. 1. By another letter dated 24.7.2001. O.P. No. 1 further revised the cost to Rs. 2.94 crores against the estimate of Rs. 69,69,975. In view of the decision of Government of India for disinvestments of Centaur Hotel, the complainant asked O.P. No. 1 on 3.12.2001 to refund the said deposited amount. It was alleged that the opposite parties have been disowning the responsibility for refunding the money. Alleging deficiency in service, complainant has sought direction against the opposite parties to pay jointly and severally the amount of Rs. 1,45,12,517 which includes interest on Rs. 69,69,975 damages from 1998 to 2005 @ Rs. one lakh per month amount to Rs. eighty-seven lacs. Direction is further sought to the opposite parties to instal 11 K.V. O/H cum U/G Feeder dedicated to the Centaur Hotel from Bijwasan Grid at the original cost.
2. Having heard Mr. V.B. Joshi for complainant on admission, we are of the view that non-refund of the deposited amount as claimed in Clause (b) of the prayer clause is not a deficiency in service on part of any of the opposite parties within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Assuming for the sake of argument that it does constitute deficiency in service, the definition of 'consumer' as given in 2(d)(ii) of the Act has been amended w.e.f. 15.3.2003 so as to exclude service for commercial purpose. Obviously, electric line for installation whereof the amount was deposited by the complainant with O.P. No 1, was to be utilized for commercial purpose by Centaur Hotel. Complainant/Centaur Hotel are, thus, not a consumer. Further, prayer (a) is not maintainable in view of the letter dated 3.12.2001 sent by the complainant to O.P. No. 1 for refund of deposited amount pursuant to the policy decision taken by Govt. of India for disinvestment of the said Hotel. Prayer (c) is connected with prayer(s)(b) and/or (a). Complaint is, therefore, dismissed being not maintainable under the said Act.