Whether commercial organisations using electricity will get relief
under consumer protection Act.
The answer is
they are not consumers. They are using eletricity for commercial purpose. And
they cannot get protection from consumer protection act.
Bihar State
Electricity Board and Ors.vs. Iceberg Industries Ltd. and
Ors.
Facts: The company
had entered into an agreement for supply of electricity
with the
Appellant Board. This was for supply of high-tension electricity
connection
for setting up of a brewery. The Bill was raised by the Appellant
towards AMG
and DPS. The company did not make payment thereof within
the
prescribed date. Three disconnection notices on account of default in
payment of
AMG as also energy charges were issued by the Board. The
company made
a representation for liquidating their dues on account of AMG in ten monthly
instalments citing certain business related difficulties. The company’s request
for grant of instalments to liquidate their dues was
ultimately
accepted by the Board and to that effect an agreement was executed between
Company and the Board for liquidation of the outstanding dues in ten
instalments. The notice under Section 56 of the Act was issued as the company
did not make payment of the bill. The Company thereafter
approached
the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum questioning legality
of the
notice. The Forum held that disconnection of the electric line of the
Petitioner
was being held legal. Supply to the Company was disconnected
again. Both
the Appellant and the Respondent company had assailed the
order of the
forum invoking the Constitutional Writ jurisdiction of the High
Court. The
company’s writ petition challenged that part of the order in which
disconnection
of electricity was held to be legal. In the first writ petition
filed by the
company, by an interim order, the High Court had directed deposit of sum for
the purpose of reenergising supply. A fresh bill was again raised along with
notice for disconnection. It included AMG and DPS for the period disallowed by
the Forum. The industry challenged the same again before the Forum. The demand
was stayed by the Forum. Without challenging the order of the Forum, the Board
in complete disregard refused to accept even current payments, and disconnected
supply of the Industry again. The writ petition was preferred against the same
by the Industry. The Single Judge found the act of disconnection without
considering the request for instalments was unwarranted. It was held that such
default on the part of the company did not constitute neglect to pay as
contemplated in Section 56 of the 2003 Act.
In appeal,
the Appeal Bench affirmed the reasoning and findings of the Writ
Court, and
held that the initial disconnection itself being illegal, the Board
did not have
the authority to charge any AMG and DPS not only for that
period but
also for each and every subsequent period of illegal disconnection
also, because
it failed to revise the bills.
Issue: Whether the
Gaya Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. is a Consumer within
the
definition of Sec. 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019?
Decision: The Supreme
Court while Dismissing the appeal held that the
Respondent
company fits this description that a case was sought to be made out that since
the company was a high-tension commercial consumer, they could not apply to the
Forum. On this count, definition of consumer as
specified in
Clause 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and
Electricity
Ombudsmen Regulation, 2006 was sought to be relied upon. There was no reason to
denude the company of its locus to approach the forum. The object of use of
electricity may be to produce items for sale, but use or consumption of
electricity by them was for their own factory.
(ii) The
Board could not have had ignored the directive of a statutory forum and
imported their own perception of what was legal to proceed against a consumer.
(iii) There was no dispute on obligation of
the Respondent company to pay the AMG charges, at least so far as first bill
was concerned. Its representation for instalment was in the nature of a mercy
plea. Going by that factor alone, this court might not have had accepted the
finding of the High Court that the consumer did not neglect to pay so as to
warrant the disconnection provision contained in Section 56 of the Act. But in
respect of Respondent company, eventually instalment was granted subsequent to
the period of disconnection. Once that plea for instalment payment was accepted
and agreement was entered into for clearing the dues, it demonstrated
willingness to pay on the part of the company of the dues
Bihar State
Electricity Board and Ors.vs. Iceberg Industries Ltd. and
Ors.
Facts: The company
had entered into an agreement for supply of electricity
Vide letter No. 3752 dated 22.12.2017 for Rs. 37,25,673/-, wherein
it was
mentioned that the previous bills were on the basis of MF-2
instead of
MF - 4. So, the difference amount as mentioned above was demanded.
Being aggrieved by the act of demanding dues after two years, which was against
Sec. 56 (2) of Electricity Act, 2003, the Complainant filed a complaint in the
State Commission.
State commission dismissed the complaint with the following
observation:
The electric connection in question has been obtained by it for
commercial
purpose to run machine for crushing stones. As such the
Complainant is not
a consumer as defined in Section (2)(1)(d) of the Consumer
Protection Act,
1986. It has not been stated in complaint that the business of
crushing of
rocks through machine has been started for the purpose of earning
livelihood by means of self employment. As such the explanation of Section 2(1)
(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not applicable on Complainant in view
of averments made in complaint. Being aggrieved by the order of the State
Commission, the Complainant has filed the present First Appeal at NCDRC.
Issue: Whether complainant is a consumer under the Sec. 2 (1)(d) of the
consumer protection act?
Decision: It is seen that the Complainant is not a consumer.
The
Complainant, being a firm having partners and doing the job of
crushing of
rocks through a machine cannot be taken to be self-employed and
doing it
for livelihood. The Consumer Protect Act, 1986 specifically only
excludes
Posts
0 Comments