GENERAL MANAGER, DESU vs ASHA RAJPUT

THIS order will dispose of appeal Nos. 251 to 257 of 1993, which arise out of the same order dated 16.2.93 of District Forum-II and by which the complaints have been allowed and the Opposite Party has been directed to allow the complainants to make fresh applications for new connections and give the electric connections to them in accordance with the rules, prescribed procedure and the latest policy decisions. It further directed them to pay to Rs. 5,00/- as costs to the complainants in each.

BRIEFLY the facts are that the complainants made applications for domestic electric connections. It is alleged that no electric connection had been given to them. Consequently they filed the complaint for appropriate directions. The Opposite Party contested the complaint and inter-alia pleaded that the complainants were not consumers and that no applications for electric connections had been filed by them. The District Forum held that the complainants had filed the applications for electric connections and the same had been processed by the Opposite Party but no electric connections were given to them, and that the complainants were consumers. Consequently, it allowed the complaint and granted the relief as mentioned above. The Opposite Party has come up in appeals against the said order to the Commission.

The first question that arises for determination is, whether the complainants, after making the applications for electric connection fall within the definition of the word ''consumer'' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act (herein after referred to as the Act). The word ''consumer'' has been defined in Section 2(1)(d) and reads as follows:- "Consumer" means any person who: "(i) xxx xxx xxx xxx (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."

FROM a reading of the definition it is evident that if a person hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been promised to be paid, he becomes a consumer. The word ''service'' has been defined in Section 2(1)(o) and it inter-alia means service of any description, which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with supply of electrical or other energy. The complainants are potential users of electricity and they are ready to pay the installation charges and hiring charges of the electricity. Therefore, in our view, they fall within the definition of the word ''consumer'' as defined in the Act. Mr. Jha, the learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a decision of the National Commission in Maharashtra State Electricity Board v. K.L. Ramani, III (1994) CPJ 170 (NC). The facts of the said case are distinguishable. In that case proper applications were not filed by the complainants and therefore, the electric connection could not be provided to them. Consequently it was observed that the complainants were not ''consumers''. The learned National Commission has, however, observed that it was me duty of the officers of the Electricity Board to have communicated to the complainants the deficiency in their applications. In the present case if the applications filed by the complainants were proper applications and in accordance with the rules they were entitled to the electric connections and the appellants could not refuse to give them connections. If they were not in order, the defects should have been pointed out by the appellant to them, so that the same could be rectified.

THE second question that arises for determination is, whether the complainants filed applications before the Opposite Party-appellant for electric connections. THE learned District Forum, after considering the evidence in the case and affidavits of the parties, came to the conclusion that they filed the applications for electric connections. We have gone through the reasoning of the learned District Forum and find no ground to differ with the same. But the applications are not traceable in the office of the appellant now. In the circumstances, in our view, the learned District Forum was right in observing that the complainants should file fresh applications before the appellant for electric connections and those should be processed in accordance with the rules, prescribed procedure and the latest policy decisions. The last question that arises for determination is, whether the District Forum was justified in awarding Rs. 500 /- as costs to each of the complainant. The finding of the District Forum as already mentioned above was that the complainants had filed the applications for electric connections and that the plea of the Opposite Party was that no such applications had been filed, was false. It may be highlighted that in the registers of the appellant the entries regarding the applications of the complainants were found. Therefore, in view of the false plea taken by them in order to harass the complainants, the District Forum was justified in burdening the appellant with costs. It is desirable that an enquiry be made into the matter by the appellant and responsibility of the official(s) be fixed, so that the consumers may be saved from avoidable litigation and harassment. For the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit in the appeals and dismiss the same with costs. Costs in each appeal Rs. 250/-. Appeal dismissed with costs.