State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, ... vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited on 1 December, 2014
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.741 of 2012.
Date of Institution: 05.06.2012.
Date of Decision: 01.12.2014.
1. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Nabha Road, Patiala, through
its Managing Director.
2. General Manager, Pepsu Road, Transport Corporation, Patiala
Depot-II, Patiala.
.....Appellants/Complainants
Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Chairman-
cum-Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Additional
Assistant Engineer, Fort Sub Division, Patiala.
....Respondents/Opposite Parties.
First Appeal against order dated
25.04.2012 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Patiala.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. Man Mohan, Advocate.
For the respondents: Sh. B.S. Taunque, Advocate.
.............................................. First Appeal No.741 of 2012 2 J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
The appellants (complainants in the complaint) have filed this appeal against order dated 25.04.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (in short, "the District Forum"), dismissing their complaint, as filed against the respondents of this appeal (opposite parties in the complaint).
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Nabha Road, Patiala and another, complainants filed the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") through its Managing Director against the opposite parties, on the allegations that it is a semi Govt. organization as per Punjab Govt. notification, with its Head Office at Nabha Road, Patiala. General Manager of Patiala Depot-II is conversant with the facts of the case and the complaint has been filed through Managing Director, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (PRTC), Patiala, who is competent. The complainant holds an account No.P21GC210017L and has been making payment of the electricity consumption charges regularly. The complainant received letter no.123 dated 04.06.2010, vide which the opposite parties demanded Rs.19,12,689/- from the complainants unauthorizedly. It has been stated in this letter that the meter was found 49.01% slow. The demand raised by the opposite parties is illegal, arbitrary and unjust. The status of the meter is correct, as is clear from the previous bills, which are sent on the basis of actual consumption. The consumption of energy of the complainant is constant. The enforcement staff of the opposite parties did not check the connection of the complainant in the presence of the complainants on their representative and no checking report was ever supplied to the complainant. The meter First Appeal No.741 of 2012 3 was required to be sent to Electrical Inspector of Punjab Govt., but the opposite parties have not done so. The Enforcement Staff cannot check the accuracy of the meter. The date of calibration of the ERS meter has not been established by the opposite parties. No detail of the amount charged was ever supplied to the complainants by the opposite parties. The opposite parties directly issued the disputed letter of demand to the complainant, instead of giving bill-cum-notice under the rules. The complainants have, thus, filed this complaint, praying that the demand of Rs.19,12,689/- raised by the opposite parties from the complainant be quashed, being illegal, besides compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the loss suffered by the complainant and Rs.15,000/- towards litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written reply, taking preliminary objections that the complainants are not the consumers under the Act. The category of the connection is commercial. The sanctioned load of connection is 98.73 KW. The complainant has been running the business of transport in the State of Punjab and the electricity is being used at a large scale by the employees of PRTC, as the building in which it is installed, is being used as Head Office-cum- Workshop of the complainant. The complainant has been excluded from the definition consumer under the Act and the complaint is not maintainable. The meter of the complainant was checked in the presence of employee of the complainant, namely Rajinder Singh, P.O., who countersigned the checking report. On merits, it was further averred that Senior Executive Engineer/Enforcement, Nawanshahr in the presence of Additional Asstt. Engineer of Operation Sub Division checked the meter of the complainant on 29.04.2010 with ES meter and it was reported by the checking officer that the meter of the complainant is moving slow by - 82.25%. For further investigation and for determining the reasons of such First Appeal No.741 of 2012 4 slowness of the meter, the connections of the meter and CT were checked by breaking the MCB, CTC and MTC seals of the meter and it was found that P-2 i.e. cables of PT blue phase and yellow phase were found wrongly connected/inter-connected with each other in the meter terminal block, meaning thereby that blue phase's PT wire was found on yellow phase and yellow phase PT's wire was connected with blue phase wire in the terminal block of the meter. The concerned AAE of the Sub Division was called by the checking officer at the site and the connections were duly connected. The accuracy of the meter was again checked by correcting the connections and the results were found within limits. The checking officer for further verification of the slowness of the meter had connected the connections of blue phase PT with yellow phase of PT i.e. as were found connected by the checking officer at the time of checking the connections and compared the consumption of the meter with parallel meter i.e. ERS meter and found the difference of consumption of both the meter as 49.1%, meaning thereby that the meter of the consumer was slow by -49%. The checking report no.9/347 and No.10/347 was prepared and the representative of the complainant namely Sh. Rajinder Singh, P.O., who was present at the site at the time of checking, countersigned the checking report in token of its correctness and a copy of the checking report was delivered to him under his signatures. The opposite parties issued notice to the complainant vide memo no.123 dated 04.06.2010, raising a demand of Rs. 19,12,689/- due to slowness of the meter, as referred to above. The opposite parties further averred that it is a case of incorrect connection of CTs and PTs. The opposite parties have the right and authority to charge the amount from the consumer, in case the electricity meter of the complainant was found running slow. The opposite First Appeal No.741 of 2012 5 parties controverted the other averments of the complainant and, thus, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. M.S. Hundal Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-9. To rebut it, the opposite parties tendered affidavit of Er. Narinder Kumar Arora Ex.R-1 along with documents Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-3 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum dismissed the complaint of the complainant. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the District Forum, the complainants have come up in this appeal against the same.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case.
6. The only point, on which the complaint of the complainant has been dismissed by the District Forum, is that the complainant is not proved to be a consumer. The complainant has hired the services of the opposite parties for commercial purpose with the sole aim of earning profit and, as such, it is not covered under the definition of consumer under the Act. We have to examine this point on record, with the able assistance of the counsel for the parties, as to whether the complainant is proved to a consumer or not? The opposite parties have raised the demand of Rs.19,12,689/-, vide memo Ex.C-2 dated 04.06.2010 from the complainant due to slowness of its electricity meter to the extent of 49.01%. Ex.C-3 is the intimation from the complainant to the Executive Engineer, Sub Division, PSPCL, stating that the demand is unauthorized. Ex.C-4 is the letter from General Manager of the complainant to the opposite parties, challenging the demand raised from the complainant by the opposite parties on the ground that current bill is of Rs.43,034 only. Similarly, the correspondence, which exchanged between the parties is First Appeal No.741 of 2012 6 Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6. Ex.C-7 is the bill receipt for Rs.43,000/-. Ex.C-8 is the copy of another electricity bill. Ex.C-9 is the checking report. Affidavit of Er. Narinder Kumar Arora, is Ex.R-1 on record, who checked the electricity meter of the complainant and found it to be moving slow by - 82.25%. He further stated that he compared the consumption of the electricity meter of the complainant with ERS meter and found the difference of consumption of the meter as 49%. Affidavit of Er. Davinder Singh is Ex.R-2 on the record in support of the averments of the opposite parties. Ex.R-3 is the checking report.
7. The District Forum, after evaluation of the above-referred evidence, recorded this finding that the complainant has not hired the services of the opposite parties for self employment to earn its livelihood. The complainant is large-scale corporation of the Punjab Govt., which runs the transport operation in the Punjab State and adjoining States. The complainant has been dealing in the commercial activities and it hired the services of the opposite parties for commercial purposes only. Ex.R-3 is the checking report dated 29.04.2010 on the record. The submission of the complainant that prior notice was not given to it, has been rightly rejected by the District Forum on the ground that Ex.C-2 is itself a notice. We find that the District Forum has correctly recorded the observation that a person, who avails any service for commercial purposes or avails any service free of charge, is excluded from the definition consumer under the Act. Only the consumer is entitled to file the complaint. As per section 2 (i)
(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the definition of the consumer is as follows:-
"Consumer" means any person who--
(i) buys any goods 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 user of such goods other than First Appeal No.741 of 2012 7 the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(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;
8. Consequently, we find that the complainant, which is a large scale corporation under the aegis of Punjab Govt., has been running its business for commercial purposes. It has been running a fleet of buses in the Punjab State and adjoining States thereto and it has employed thousands of employees, who are working in it. The complainant hired the services of the opposite parties, solely for earning profit. There is no question of the complainant that it used the electric connection for earning its livelihood by means of self-employment. After the amendment in the Consumer Protection Act in the year 2002, any person, who hires the services for commercial purposes, would not a consumer and is not entitled to file the consumer complaint. We find that the District Forum has correctly observed that the complainant is not a consumer, because the services availed by the complainant are for commercial purposes and, as such, the consumer complaint is not maintainable.
9. As a result of our above discussion, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the appellants/ First Appeal No.741 of 2012 8 complainants at liberty to avail of their remedy under the alternative statutory provisions provided to it.
10. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 21.11.2014 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (JASBIR SINGH GILL) MEMBER December 01, 2014.
(Gurmeet S)