JOGINDER SINGH vs PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

THE present appeal is by the complainant, Joginder Singh challenging order of District Forum, Ludhiana dated April 30, 1997 dismissing his complaint filed against Punjab State Electricity Board and relegating him to his remedy to the Civil Court. Since there is no adjudication of the facts pleaded by the parties, only brief facts are noticed in order to decide this appeal.

BHARAT Bhushan was initially owner of the premises having electric connection there. He also have other premises - knows as Petrol Pump. The present premises were purchased by Gupta Oil Store of which BHARAT Bhushan was the partner. Subsequently Joginder Singh was inducted as partner in the same firm known as Gupta Oil Store and as such he was using electricity received through the electric connection. The same was disconnected by the Electricity Board primarily on the ground that electricity was being diverted to the pump referred to above. This disconnection is the grouse of the complainant in the complaint filed before the District Forum. The Electricity Board justified their action of disconnection as referred to above, and at the same time disputed the status of Joginder Singh as a consumer entitled to file the complaint. The plea of the Electricity Board prevailed with the District Forum that the impugned order was passed. Copy of the sale-deed vide which premises were purchased by Gupta Oil-partnership firm, was produced. Copy of the partnership deed between Bharat Bhushan and Joginder Singh, present complainant has also been produced. The fact remains that from the electricity connection which is in dispute electricity was being consumed in the premises earlier by the partnership firm-Gupta Oil Store-where Joginder Singh was not partner and after constitution of new partnership by Joginder Singh as well being partner of M/s. Gupta Oil Store. He is a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, which is as under : "2(1)(d). "Consumer'' means any person who- (i) buys any goods 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 user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or (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 services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payments, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person."

Sub-clause (ii) as referred to above would indicate that the scope of the definition of consumer has been widen. Not only the actual person who had hired the services of the opposite party is to be consumer entitled to claim relief under the Consumer Protection Act but also a beneficiary of such a contract of hiring services of the opposite party. Since electric connection was issued by the Electricity Board, the services, of the Electricity Board were hired. The electric connection is in the name of Bharat Bhushan, hence Bharat Bhushan had hired the services. Thus the solitary question required for determination is as to whether alongwith Bharat Bhushan his partner in the firm could also be treated as beneficiary. The answer is obvious and is in the affirmative. Being a partner he is entitled to use the premises for which partnership deed has been executed. For the use of the premises the electricity is also being used for which connection has already been obtained by Bharat Bhushan from the Electricity Board. Thus, without further making comments on the merits of the case, the complainant is held to be consumer entitled to file the complaint.

FOR the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed. Order of the District FORum is set-aside. The complaint is held to be maintainable. The case is remanded to the District FORum for decision of the complaint on merits according to law. Parties present are directed to appear before the District FORum on 21.12.1998. Copy of the order alongwith District FORum records be sent there promptly. Appeal allowed.