ASHOK KUMAR KUKREJA vs M.P.E.B.

THIS appeal is directed against order dated 28.5.1996 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as "District Forum"), Gwalior in Case No. 650/92, where by the District Forum rejected the complaint on the grounds that complainant was not a consumer and hence his complaint could not be adjudicated by District Forum.

THE facts of the case in brief are that the complainant is a partner in a hotel business known as Metro Hotel, located in Chawdi Bazar, Gwalior. He has three electric connections in his Hotel. THEir numbers are 373145, 373147 and 373156. THE complainant was paying electricity bills regularly. Even then M.P.E.B. sent him a bill for Rs.25,523.80 on 15.6.1992, when complainant approached the M.P.E.B. Authorities, it is alleged, he did not get satisfactory reply. He, therefore, filed a complaint in the District Forum, Gwalior with a prayer to quash the unjustified hill. In their reply filed in the District Forum, the opposite party averred that Vigilance Wing of M.P.E.B. did a surprise check of the hotel premises on 23.4.1992 and found that the load on the electric connections was nearly twice that of the contracted load. It was 27.78 kilowatt instead of 14.78 Kilowatt indicating excess load of 13 Kilowatt. THEy also found that complainant had committed theft of electricity by running a wire from the pole, outside the meter installed. Thus/ the complainant had fraudulantly availed extra electricity in addition to theft. This checking was done reportedly in presence of the complainant''s agent. Opposite party thus sent a bill for Rs. 25523.80 paise being charges for excess electricity consumed together with line charges and penalty, etc. Details were filed in the District Forum. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint, because they averred that their bill was raised as per provisions of Section 5 of the. M.P. Electricity Recoveries of Dues Act, 1961 A word about the course taken by this case in the District forum is necessary at this juncture. On the request of the complainant, the District Forum passed an interim order on 11.6.1992 not to disconnect the electric connection. This was objected to by the opposite party on the grounds that no interim order could be passed. The District Forum then passed another order on 18.8.1992 directing the comp lainant to file a bank guarantee for the total amount due from him in 15 days or pay half the sum i.e. to pay 1 /2 of Rs. 25,523.80 paise in 15 days, ultimately after hearing both the parties, the District Forum passed an order dated 28.5.1996 against which this instant appeal has been filed before us.

After hearing both the parties and after perusal of record, we find that points for consideration and decision by us are following : (a) Whether District Forum was right in taking a view that complainant was not a consumer and hence the District Forum was not competent to adjudicate in the matter? (b) Whether M.P.E.B. was competent to recover arrears of dues on account of extra load of electricity amounting to 13 kilowatt over and above contracted load availed by complainant?

ABOUT point (a) a perusal of the judgment of District Forum reveals that they have relied upon the judgment of Andhra Pradesh State Commission for redressal of consumer disputes as is evident from their judgment in following two cases : (i) II (1993) CPJ 874, Shri Manufacturing C.O. v. A.P. State Electricity Board. (ii) 1993 (2) CPR 412, Anand Ice Factory v. Assistant Divisional Engineer, A.P. State Electricity Board. We have perused the above two judgments and found that Andhra Pradesh State Commission has indeed taken the view that Electricity was "Goods" and if used for commercial purposes then the person getting electricity was not a consumer. However, we think that in all these matters, judgments of National Commission should be relied upon rather than of State Commissions. In plethora of judgments National Commission has taken a view that any out fit obtaining electricity for domestic or commercial use will continue to be consumers as long as electricity is not being sold by them. In the case of Manju Singh Chauhan v. M.P.E.B. and Another, I (1992) CPJ 73 (NC), the National Commission has observed as follows : "This Commission has considered these questions in a number of cases previously. It has come to the firm conclusion that corporate bodies like the State Electricity Boards render service under Section 2(1) (e) of Consumer Protection Act and that the sale of electricity is for consideration and supply of electricity on a continuing basis over a period of time against payment therefore, i s hiring of service under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act. There is no merit in the contentions of the opposite party on the question of jurisdiction."

In view of above decision of the National Commission the judgment of District Forum is not legally sustainable and therefore, deserves to be set aside. As regards point (b) perusal of record reveals that the following undisputed facts : (i) Complainant''s Hotel premises had three electric connections. (ii) Checking of electrical connections by Vigilance Cell in the presence of Manager or agent of the Hotel revealed that load on electric installation was 13 KW more than contracted for and an attempt of theft of electricity by running a wire from the pole outside the electric meter was done. (iii) Inspection report has been signed by consumer or his agent and also the fact has not been refuted by complainant in his affidavits.

We have also seen the relevant provisions of the Act under which respondents are empowered to recover dues arising out of facts narrated in preceding paragraphs. We are convinced that respondents can recover the amount particularly because irregularities have been detected in the presence of appellant or his agent. We also feel that allegations in the complaint by the complainant are baseless and an attempt to pose innocence while being aware of irregularities. On merits also the appeal has no substance and therefore, deserves to be dismissed. In the context of the facts mentioned in preceding paragraphs, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Order dated 28.5.1996 of the District Forum is also set aside. We direct that appellant shall pay the balance amount out of Rs. 25,523.80 which still remains unpaid to respondent M.P.E.B. within one month of the receipt of this order. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.