Gurdayal Singh vs EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, H.P.S.E.B. DIVISION, MANDI, H.P.

THIS appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Mandi, dated 26.2.1999, whereby the complaint of the appellant/complainant (hereinafter to be referred to as the complainant) has been dismissed on the ground that the dispute being between the tenant and the landlord is of civil nature and is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

THE admitted relevant facts of the case are that the complainant is a tenant of House No. 84/1 situated at Jawahar Nagar, Mandi Town, H.P. for the last 40 years and that he has been paying bills on account of electricity charges in respect of the meter which has been attached to his house. However, the meter is in the name of the landlord Shri Jai Singh bearing Account No. K. 422. Shri Jai Singh died in the month of September, 1998 and it appears that Shri Jai Singh''s son asked the respondent-Electricity Board to disconnect the electricity connection of this meter and accordingly at the insistence of the son of Shri Jai Singh - the original owner, the respondent-Electricity Board disconnected the electricity connection which has given rise to the present complaint. The controversy does not relate to the dispute between the landlord and the tenant, but it is the result of disconnection of the electricity connection by the Electricity Board which, according to the complainant, is wholly illegal.

The question that requires consideration is whether the tenant who is admittedly paying the charges of electricity for the last 40 years with the approval of the land-owner, although the meter might be in the name of land-owner, is a consumer.

THE definition of word ''Consumer'' under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 covers the beneficiary of any services hired, which may be reproduced below : "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."

The tenant of a house provided with the electricity connection is undoubtedly a beneficiary of that service so as long he is allowed to enjoy that facility with the approval of the land-owner. The complainant admittedly is a tenant and a beneficiary of the services hired or availed of for consideration by his land-owner. Notwithstanding the fact the electricity connection is in the name of landowner, the fact remains that the complainant in the present case is enjoying the facility of electricity supply for the last 40 years with the approval of land-owner and as such we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

THERE is no explanation on the part of the respondent-Electricity Board as to why have they disconnected the electricity connection except their plea that they have disconnected the electricity supply at the instance of the son of the original owner. Such an action on the part of the respondent-Electricity Board is not only deficient, but is highly arbitrary. No other points were urged. In the light of what is discussed above, the appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside and the respondent-Electricity Board is directed to restore the electricity connection of the complainant forthwith. THERE is no orders as to costs. Appeal allowed.