KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD vs H.V.BALACHANDRA RAO

THIS is an appeal filed by the Karnataka Electricity Board /opposite party, challenging the order dated 22.2.1994, passed by the District Forum, Mangalore in Complaint No. DKDF/ CC/112/92-93 on its file.

THE complainant/respondent is a proprietor of the Battery Charging Unit in Puttur, Dakshina Kannada. THE K.E.B. was supplying electricity to his unit and they issued a bill dated 6.3.1990 demanding a sum of Rs. 22.628.40 on the ground that the complainant, was required to pay electricity charges under Tariff Schedule LT-3. THE complainant took a stand that the K.E.B. should have charged under Tariff Sched- ule LT-5. The District Forum in its elaborate order has accepted the case of the complainant. Unfortunately certain important points have been missed.

It is not in dispute that the complainant had filed a writ petition seeking the same reliefs in Writ Petition No. 5248 of 1990 before the Hon''ble High Court of Karnataka and by an order dated 17.1.1991 the writ petition was disposed of quashing the bill in dispute but reserving the right to the K.E.B. to raise an appropriate demand. The K.E.B. issued a new bill on 18.12.1990 for Rs. 27,154.10. This bill was also challenged in Writ Petition No. 4979 of 1991 by the complainant. This writ petition also came to be disposed of on 3.4.1991, with an observation that the proper course for the complainant is to file an appeal as provided under Regulation 47 of the Karnataka Electricity Supply Regulations. There was also a direction that in case the complainant files such an appeal, the appeal should be entertained and disposed of by the Appellate Authority.

THERE is no dispute that the appeal that was filed by the complainant before the Appellate Authority was pending when the complain- ant filed the complaint before the District Forum on 10.8.1992. From this it is clear that there has been no deficiency of Service on the part of the appellant K.E.B. on the date of the complaint. This aspect has not been considered by the District Forum. Another point that is urged before us, is that the complainant is not a consumer as the electrical power supplied to him was for commercial purpose.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant- K.E.B. relied on a decision rendered by this Commission in Escon Private Ltd. v. THE Karnataka Electricity Board & Ors., reported in I (1991) CPJ 450, wherein it was held that electricity is ''goods'' and a person buying electricity for a commercial purpose is not a ''consumer''. This decision has been followed by this Commission thereafter. It is, therefore, too late to reject the contention that Electricity is ''goods''. In the instant case, it is admitted in the complaint itself that the complainant has been running his unit under the style "Messrs. Techno Batteries". In para 4 of his affidavit, he clearly states that during the period between 16.1.1991 and 12.4.1991 he had incurred a loss of Rs. 15,000/- as the appellant had wrongfully disconnected the power connection. It is not stated anywhere by the complainant that he was using electricity for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that the complainant was purchasing electricity, which according to us is ''goods'' for a commercial purpose. Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, clearly says that a person who buys goods for resale or for any commercial purpose will not be a ''consumer''. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, contended that Electricity Supply would come within the meaning of ''service'', as defined under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act and, therefore, the complainant will become the consumer, having engaged the services of the Karnataka Electricity Board for supply of power. If we read Section 2(1)(o) alone, perhaps the learned Advocate for the respondent is correct. But unfortunately for him a statute cannot be read like that. It is incumbent on the part of the Commission to apply the rule of harmonious construction in such cases. The judicial Forums have to presume that the Legislature inserted every part thereof for a purpose and that the legislative intention is that every part of the statute shall have effect. A statute must be read as a whole and one provision of the Act should be construed with reference to other provisions in the same Act so as to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute. Such a construction will avoid inconsistency of repugnancy either within a section or between a section and other parts of the statute. It should not be lightly assumed that the Legislature had taken away with one hand that has been given with the other. The sub-sections must be read as parts of an integral whole and as being interdependent. An attempt should be made in construing them to reconcile them if it is reasonably possible to do so and to avoid repugnancy. A construction which renders one provision use- less is not harmonious construction. So a person purchasing electricity in this case - "goods" - cannot be classified as ''consumer'' if the electrical power is used for commercial purpose.

WE are, therefore, of the view, that the complainant cannot be classified as a consumer as electricity was supplied to the complainant for commercial purpose.

IN the result, we pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. No costs. Appeal allowed.