ISHWAR SINGH vs Dakshin Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd

THE electric connection of Atta Chakki installed in the house of Complainant was inspected on 23.11.2000 by the S.D.O. of the Opposite Party. During inspection, malpractices/theft was noticed that there was direct supply of PVC joint. Notice for imposing penalty of Rs. 10,195 was issued. The Complainant filed reply before the authorities and subsequently challenged the action of the Opposite Party by filing consumer complaint. The District Forum quashed the penalty. The Opposite Party filed appeal before the State Commission.

THE State Commission allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint.

HEARD Counsel for the Complainant. The case of the Complainant is that he has domestic Atta Chakki connection under A/c No. GC-61. The respondents in their reply denied that it was domestic connection. The Respondents also took the plea that the Forum has no jurisdiction since the Complainant was found to have committed theft of energy from the PVC joint prior to the meter by connecting 5 metre 2 core PVC wire for non-domestic purpose. The electric connection is admittedly for Atta Chakki but the dispute is whether it is a domestic connection or commercial connection. The opposite party has denied that it was domestic connection. Complainant has not produced any material before us to show that it was a domestic connection. Apparently, Atta Chakki even though installed in the house would be for commercial purpose and nowhere it has been pleaded that the Atta Chakki was being used for own use of the Complainant or that the Atta Chakki was meant for his livelihood. No material has been produced before us by the Complainant so as to come to the conclusion that the Complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, inasmuch as services for commercial purpose are excluded thereunder. Besides this in case of theft of electricity Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to go into such issues. In view of this, we are of the opinion that the Complainant, prima facie, is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the complaint before the Consumer Forum was not maintainable.

IN view of this, the revision filed by the Petitioner stands dismissed as also the complaint filed by him. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to cost. Revision dismissed.