Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 815 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board v. Jawant Rai Sood

2009-10-01

ARUN KUMAR GOEL, CHANDER SHEKHAR SHARMA, SAROJ SHARMA

body2009
ORDER Chander Shekher Sharma, Member:- This appeal is directed against the order of District Forum, Shimla in Consumer Complaint No. 96j2004, dated 19.6.2009 whereby the complaint of the respondent No.1 was allowed and the demand of the sundary charges contained in the Consumer Bill Annexure C-l dated 9.3.2004, amounting to Rs. 66,576/- levied against him have been quashed with litigation cost assessed at Rs. 1500/-. 2. Facts of the case as they emerge from the complaint file are, that the respondent No.1 after taking loan from the HDFC Bank for earning his livelihood for running his hotel started the hotel. He started business of running Hotel Mayur at Ridge, Shimla. Electricity Meter No. 8907 was installed in the said hotel by the appellant. Respondent No.1 got the bill of Rs. 87,934/ - for the month of February, 2004 which was excessive and un-just. This resulted in filing of complaint by the respondent No.1 against the appellant and respondent No.2 for directions to the appellant to investigate the matter and issue correct bill, with compensation amounting to Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 5000/ - was also claimed in the complaint. 3. Appellant contested and resisted the complaint and submitted its version wherein its plea was, that there is alternate remedy to the complaint as such present complaint is not maintainable and on merits it was submitted that earlier meter installed in the premises of respondent was not in order, as it was showing consumption of less electricity. New Electronic meter No. 019832328 was installed on 13.7.2001 by replacing old meter No. 9056556 and this fact had also come to notice of Audit and as per Audit Para, that 22190 unit energy although consumed by the respondent for the preceding months, as per audit had not been charged. Therefore arrear, of less amount calculated which according to the appellant worked out to Rs. 70,383/-. As such the claim raised against the respondent No.1 as per electricity bill Annexure C-l was proper. It was also pleaded that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the appellant in any manner. Thus dismissal of complaint was prayed for. 4. Appellant in support of his case has filed affidavit of Sh. 70,383/-. As such the claim raised against the respondent No.1 as per electricity bill Annexure C-l was proper. It was also pleaded that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the appellant in any manner. Thus dismissal of complaint was prayed for. 4. Appellant in support of his case has filed affidavit of Sh. K.S.Kanwar, Superintending Engineer H.P.S.E.B, fax message Annexure R-l which relates to the installation of electronic meter, Annexure R-2 order regarding installation of electronic meter dated 9.7.2007, audit para Annexure R-3 and electricity bill R-4. 5. Brief resume of evidence led by the respondent No.1 in nut-shell is that he has filed his own affidavit and placed reliance upon disputed bill Annexure C-l, balance sheet Annexure C-2 and other electricity bills, Anenxure C-3 to C-6 and hotel occupancy statement w.e.f October, 2003 to February, 2004 Anenxure C-7. 6. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have also gone through the case file minutely. Mr. B.S.Ranjan, learned counsel for the appellant argued that in the present case respondent does not fall within the ambit of definition of consumer as given in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, since the premises were used as a hotel which is for commercial purpose. He further argued that, since there was defect in the' earlier meter which was showing less consumption of electricity and as per Audit Para it was found that 22190 unit energy although consumed by the consumer i.e the respondent No.1 for the preceecling months based on average had not been charged. As such electricity bill Annexure C-l was rightly issued to respondent No.1. However, none appeared for respondent No.2 before us. 7. Ms. Yogita Dutta, counsel for the respondent No.1 has supported the judgment of Fora below and argued that in the present case since the respondent in order to earn his livelihood had taken loan from the HD FC Bank for the purpose of running business of hotel as such the respondent is a consumer as per section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties as well as after having gone through the record of the case file we are convinced that the order of the District Forum below does not suffer from any infirmity. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties as well as after having gone through the record of the case file we are convinced that the order of the District Forum below does not suffer from any infirmity. There appears to be no force in the argument urged on behalf of the appellant, that the respondent does not fall within the definition of consumer u/s 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Since in the present case the respondent had taken loan for his earning his livelihood by running business of hotel from the HDFC which is evident from Annexure C-2 as such the respondent does fall within the definition of Consumer u/s 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This factual position is clear from the averments made in the complaint. 9. In the present case action of the appellant in submitting bill Annexure C-1 dated 9.3.2009 wherein sundry charges amounting to Rs. 66,5701- have been levied against the respondent No.1 is not legally warranted, since sundary charges have been calculated in the bill for the month of March, 2004, whereas those as per the appellant relate to the period w.e.f February, 2001 to July, 2001 as per Annexure R-3 as discussed in detail in para No.5 of the order of Forum below. Even the extract of audit para which is the basis for submission of bill Annexure C-1 wherein sundry charges have been included had not been placed upon record. Moreover no opportunity of being heard was given to the respondent before imposition of sundry charges to the tune of Rs. 66,570/- as per Annexure C-1/R-4 against the respondent which is not legally sustainable. Even otherwise in this case there is nothing on record to suggest that there was any complaint regarding old meter being defective was ever received by the Electricity Board. And if there was fault in the meter" then appellant should have got the meter checked after giving notice to the respondent. The audit objection about imposition of sundry charges thus is not legally justified. 10. No other point was urged. 11. In view of the above discussion we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by District Forum, Shimla in Complaint No. 96/2004 dated 19.6.2007 and the same is upheld. Hence, present appeal is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 12. 10. No other point was urged. 11. In view of the above discussion we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by District Forum, Shimla in Complaint No. 96/2004 dated 19.6.2007 and the same is upheld. Hence, present appeal is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 12. All interim orders passed from time to time shall stand vacated forthwith. 13. Learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect copy of this order free of cost from the Court Secretary as per Rules. M.R.B.