MAHA SINGH SHERAWAT vs SDO, ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT

FEELING aggrieved against judgment and order dated 1.7.2004 passed by District Consumer Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) in Complaint Case No. 60 of 2004, the complainant Shri Maha Singh Sherawat has filed this appeal.

AFTER the service of the notice on the respondents, Mr. K.C. Sahu, Govt. Pleader appeared for respondent No. 1-S.D.O. (Electricity). Respondent No. 2 put in appearance through Mr. Jasbir Singh Kataria, Advocate but at the time of hearing of the appeal, none was present on behalf of respondent No. 1. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. K.C. Sahu, Govt. Pleader and perusing the averments made in the complaint case, we find that the appellant/complainant does not fall in the definition of ''consumer'' as provided in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is not disputed that the electric connection provided to House No. 183-A, Shivalik Enclave, NAC Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh was taken by respondent No. 2 Shri Jasbir Singh Kataria who had been using the electric energy through the said electric meter. The house aforesaid was purchased by the appellant from the respondent No. 2 vide sale-deed dated 17.5.2002. After the purchase of the house, the appellant received a bill dated 3.2.2003 amounting to Rs. 25,948/- for the period from 10.7.1998 to 10.7.2002. The appellant got possession of the house aforesaid from the respondent No. 2 after the execution of the sale-deed and since then he had been paying the electricity bill regularly. The appellant denied his liability to pay arrears shown in the disputed bill, which related to the period prior to the sale of the said house.

So far as the electricity meter is concerned, it still stands in the name of the previous owner-respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 2 is the consumer so far as using the electric energy through the electricity meter is concerned as he has hired and availed and is availing the services of respondent No. 1. The appellant never applied for transfer of the electricity meter in his name after the purchase of the house and as such, he cannot be held to be the person who has hired and availed the services of the respondent No. 1 for consideration.

SO far as the grievance regarding the payment of the disputed bill is concerned, the same lies between the appellant and the respondent No. 2, the previous owner and the same cannot be held to be a consumer dispute, which could be adjudicated by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies. In this view of the matter, the finding of the District Forum that there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.P. No. 1-SDO (O.P.) Sub-Division 8, Manimajra and that no relief can be granted to the appellant, though for different reasons deserves to be affirmed. So far as the remedy of the complainant is concerned, he can approach a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for getting the matter in dispute adjudicated by impleading the respondents as defendants in the suit as it is a civil dispute, which has arisen between the appellant and the respondents particularly the respondent No. 2. It is, however, held that the complainant is not a consumer and hence, the consumer complaint filed by him is not maintainable and for this reason, the impugned judgment and order regarding the dismissal of the complaint is upheld. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

COPIES of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal disposed of.