M.AHMED-UL-HAQ. vs ASSTT. ENGINEER, K.E.B. CHAMARAJANAGAR

THE complainant in this case had set up a granite polishing and cutting unit at Bydrapura, Chamarajanagar Taluk. After completion of the building structure of the factory in November 1989, the machinery was errected in January 1990. He had obtained a loan from KSFC, Mysore Branch of Rs. 4.60 lakhs. THE total cost of the factory is Rs. 8 lakhs. THE loan from KSPC was sanctioned on 10.1.1989. After completion of the building and setting up of the machinery he had registered with the Engineer, Chamarajanagar for 38 H.P. power on 21.9.1989 by paying registration fee of Rs. 50/-. He also deposited a sum of Rs. 12,470/- as desired by the KEB on 24.10.1989. THE feasibility report was given on 29.3.1990. Due to the negligence and delay in sanctioning the power to his unit, he had to pay interest to the KSFC and also he had to pay salary of his staff and due to that he sustained loss. Hence, he has filed this complaint for compensation of Rs. 3,55,200/-.

THE complaint is resisted by the respondent by contending inter-alia that the complainant is not a consumer and hence this complaint is not maintainable and that there has been no delay on the part of the respondent in supplying the electricity. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties on the question whether the complainant is a consumer.

The learned Counsel for the complainant urged that as the complainant has paid the registration fee of Rs. 50/- and as he had deposited Rs. 12,470/-, the complainant will be a consumer. The learned Counsel for the respondent urged that by merely filing an application for supply of electricity the complainant cannot be said to have hired the services of the respondent for consideration and so he will not be a consumer. From Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a person who buys any goods for consideration or hires any service for consideration will be a consumer. This is not a case of purchase of goods. According to the complainant this is a case of hiring of services for consideration. The complainant had only paid the registration fee of Rs. 50/- as required by Regulation No. 7 of the Karnataka Electricity Supplies Regulations, 1988. He also deposited a sum of Rs. 12,470/- on 24.10.1989. From the letter of the KEB dated 29.3.1990 which was produced by the learned Counsel for the complainant, it is clear that the said amount of Rs. 12,470/- is the three months minimum deposit. So this cannot be consideration for hiring the services of the KEB. The registration fee also cannot be consideration for hiring services of the KEB, as it is required to be paid along with the application. Hence, it cannot be said that by merely filing an application for supply of electricity, the complainant had hired the services of the KEB for consideration. If that is so, the complainant will not be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Hence, this complaint cannot be entertained by this Commission.

IN the result, the complaint is dismissed. Under the circumstances, we direct the parties to bear their own costs. Complaint dismissed.