Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-1 vs ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA

B .C. Gupta, Member This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 08.04.2008, passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ''the State Commission '') in FA No. 1336/SC/2007, ''''Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division No. 1, Lakhimpur Kheri versus Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma '''', vide which while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 07.04.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Lakhimpur Kheri, allowing the consumer complaint no. 107/03, was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma operates a diagnostic clinic in his house and that he had obtained an electric connection for domestic consumption of power under electric tariff plan known as LMV -1. The Executive Engineer of the area sent a notice to him asking him to pay the electricity charges under category LMV -2, as he was running the clinic for commercial purpose. The complainant, however, took the position that he was simply doing an advisory business in a portion of his house and hence, he could not be compelled to pay electricity tariff for commercial purpose. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, which was heard by the District Forum and it was directed by the District Forum that the electric connection of the complainant should be treated as domestic connection. An appeal filed against this order was dismissed by the State Commission vide impugned order dated 08.04.2008. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been made. At the time of hearing before us, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/OP that the complainant was running his clinic for commercial purpose and hence, as per the Rate Schedule issued by the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, effective from 1.12.2004 in accordance with the order dated 10.11.2004, passed by the U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission, he is to be charged as per Rate Schedule LMV -2. This schedule is applicable for non -domestic light, fan and power and is applicable to Doctors as well, but excludes the lawyers '' chambers. The District Forum had based its order on a press -clipping that was published in ''''Dainik Jagran, '''' in which it has been stated that the chambers of the lawyers were not commercial establishments. The District Forum concluded that similarly, the clinics of the Doctors were not commercial establishments. This assertion of the District Forum could not be stated to be correct. Further, the District Forum had erroneously stated that Doctors '' clinics were not included in the Rate Schedule LMV -2. The State Commission has also concurred with this view in a wrongful manner, because the word ''Doctors '' does appear in LMV -2.

THE complainant/respondent was issued notice for final hearing and was duly served. However, he sent a letter dated 16.11.2013, giving his version about the issue involved and requested that the said petition be dismissed. He has stated in his written submission that he had deposited the electricity bill of Rs.10,280/ -, according to the Plan LMV -2 on 25.03.2010. He had further deposited the final bill of Rs.842/ - upto 16.01.2013 and his electricity connection had been permanently disconnected. The concerned Sub Divisional Officer had also issued a letter to the Junior Engineer asking him to permanently disconnect the electricity connection.

WE have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. From the documents produced on record by the petitioner, it is made out that the rate schedules for electricity tariff as issued by the UP Power Corporation Limited have been classified in two categories; the rate schedule LMV -1 is meant for domestic power connections, whereas rate schedule LMV -2 is meant for non -domestic power connections. The copies of the rate schedules effective from 16.09.2001 as issued vide notification dated 10.09.2001, rate schedules applicable with effect from 9.11.2002 as issued by notification dated 2.11.2002 and the rate schedules effective from 1.12.2004 have been placed on record. In all these rate schedules, the private diagnostic centres including X -ray plants have been included in rate schedule LMV -2. There is no mention of the word Doctors in the rate schedules effective from 16.09.2001 and 9.11.2002 but the word Doctors has been mentioned in the rate schedule effective with effect from 1.12.2004. The present complaint has been made in the year 2003 and at that time, the rate schedule effective with effect from 9.11.2002 was applicable. The District Form and the State Commission have tried to make a distinction between a private diagnostic centre and the Doctors clinic, saying that the private diagnostic centres were covered under LMV -2, whereas Doctors '' clinics should be covered under LMV -1. However, we do not find any justification to agree with the findings of the District Forum and the State Commission. It is very clear from record that the tariff structure covered under the category LMV -1 is meant only for domestic purposes whereas the tariff structure LMV -2 is applicable for non -domestic purposes. In the instant case, it has been stated in complaint itself that the complainant is running a clinic at the premises in question. It is quite obvious that running a clinic is not a domestic purpose and hence it cannot be covered under the rate schedule LMV -1 by any stretch of imagination. Further, the District Forum reached at their conclusion based on a press -clipping according to which chambers of lawyers are not commercial establishments. We are unable to understand how a similarity has been drawn between chambers of lawyers and the clinics run by Doctors. It has been specifically mentioned in the rate schedule effective with effect from 1.12.2004 that lawyers '' chambers shall be covered under LMV -1.

THE petitioner has also stated that as per the inspection carried out on 27.08.2008 by their Department, it has been stated that the complainant is running his clinic at the premises in question, but he does not reside there. The version of the complainant that he is running some advisory business at his residential premises cannot be accepted.

FURTHER , the contention of the complainant that he had made payment of bills upto date and that the connection had been permanently disconnected now, does not have any relevance with the complaint which was made in the year 2003. Moreover, the complainant has himself admitted that he has made payments as per the tariff structure in LMV -2. Based on the above discussion, this revision petition is allowed and the orders passed by the State Commission and District Forum are set aside. The consumer complaint in question, is dismissed with no order as to costs.