Back
HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, President;
Mrs. Basanti Devi, Member; Mrs. Tikka Singh, Member.
HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD—Appellant
versus
DINESH KUMAR—Respondent
First Appeal No. 16 of 1990—Decided on 22.4.1990
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - SUPPLY OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY - HIRING OF SERVICES OR PURCHASE OF GOODS - CROSS-OBJECTIONS IN APPEAL - MAINTAINABILITY - [SECTION 2(1)(I), 2(1)(O), 2(7), 15, 30(2)] - Whether the supply of electrical energy is a hiring of services, or a purchase of goods, by a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? Whether a contesting respondent in an appeal under Section 15 of the aforesaid Act can prefer and maintain cross-objections against the same?
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, Haryana State Electricity Board, challenged the orders of the District Forum, Hisar, which had granted relief to the respondents, Bishan Sarup and Dinesh Kumar, in their complaints against excessive electricity charges and alleged theft of electricity. The respondents were running industrial units and were supplied electrical energy through meters. The Board contended that the respondents were not consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as they were purchasing electricity for commercial purposes. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the supply of electrical energy was a hiring of services and not a purchase of goods, and thus they were entitled to relief under the Act. Additionally, the respondents filed cross-objections seeking further reliefs.
Finding of the Court:
1. The supply of electrical energy under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is a hiring of services and not a purchase of goods. 2. The cross-objections filed by the respondents in the appeals are not maintainable.
Issues: 1. Whether the supply of electrical energy is a hiring of services or a purchase of goods by a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? 2. Whether a contesting respondent in an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, can prefer and maintain cross-objections against the same?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of 'goods' in Section 2(1)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is derived from the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, which defines 'goods' as every kind of movable property other than actionable claims and money. The definition of 'service' in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, entertainment, amusement or the purveying a news or other information. 2. The supply of electrical energy has been expressly included in the definition of 'service' in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. When the statute expressly labels the same as a 'service', then it is impossible to label it as a 'sale of goods' by an interpretative exercise. 3. The Act draws a clear distinction between a consumer who purchases goods for consideration and the one who hires any services for consideration. Whilst a person purchasing the goods for a commercial purpose is ousted from the definition of a 'consumer', a person who hires services for consideration even for commercial purposes, remains squarely within its ambit. 4. The right of appeal is a creature of the statute and the right to file cross-objections is analogous to the right of appeal. Since the Act and the Rules do not provide for cross-objections and Order 41, Rule 22, of the Civil Procedure Code, is not applicable, then such a right to prefer cross-objections cannot be created by any interpretative exercise alone.
Final Decision: The appeals filed by the Haryana State Electricity Board were dismissed, and the cross-objections filed by the respondents were rejected as not being maintainable.
Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, President — Whether the supply of electrical energy is a hiring of services, or a purchase of goods, by a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? Whether a contesting respondent in an appeal under Section 15 of the aforesaid Act can prefer and maintain cross-objections against the same? These are the two somewhat ticklish questions arising for adjudication in this set of two connected appeals (First Appeal Nos. 16 and 18 of 1990) preferred by the Haryana State Electricity Board.
2. Learned Counsel for the parties are agreed that the issues of fact and of law in both these appeals are similar, if not identical, and as such these are being disposed of by this common order.
3. The facts that now deserve notice in the context of the two questions aforesaid lie in a narrow compass. Bishan Sarup and Dinesh Kumar, respondents in the two appeals, are father and son, respectively, and apparently are running industrial units in the same or adjoining premises at Hisar. Whilst Bishan Sarup respondent has restarted his dal mill recently and is being supplied electrical energy vide meter No. SP-3-479, his son Dinesh Kumar respondent is running another industrial unit fed by electrical energy through meter No. SP-3-601, On the 22nd February, 1990, Assistant Director (Vigilance) (H.S.E.B) had raided the premises of the two respondents and found the glass of meter No. 479 in a broken condition from top corner and another glass affixed from outside, which could be easily removed. At the same time a load of 12.578 K.W. was found against the sanctioned load of 5.955 K.W. In the same manner he found a load of 13.578 K.W. against the sanctioned load of 11.578 K.W. in the electric meter No. 601. He submitted separate reports in both the cases, on the basis of which demands for electricity charges were raised against the two respondents, seeking a pre-emptory payment thereof.
4. Two separate complaints were filed by Sh. Bishan Sarup and Dinesh Kumar, respondents, before the District Forum, Hisar, against the demands aforesaid. The former was primarily aggrieved by the bill to the tune of Rs. 5,416.95, payable by 16th April, 1990. His primal grievance was against the demand of Rs. 2,700/- towards the excess load, and he further challenged the demand of Rs. 1,977.97 (on the basis of the last six months’ average) as being arbitrary and unjustified.
5. Dinesh Kumar respondent was aggrieved by the demand of Rs. 1,238.16, but the main thrust was his denial of liability to pay sundry charges to the tune of Rs. 900/-, as he claimed that there was no excessive load and sought the correction of his bill.
6. On notices being issued to the opposite party, the stand taken on their behalf in the counter-version was with regard to the locus standi of the complainants and the very jurisdiction of the Forum to entertain the complaints. The allegations made in both the complaints were controverted and the demand of electrical charges was sought to be firmly sustained. Since the two cases had arisen out of the two checking reports of the same date, i.e., 22nd February, 1990, the District Forum thought it expedient to dispose of both the complaints by a common order, which is now under appeal. Thereby the District Forum rejected the objections with regard to its jurisdiction and proceeded to grant relief to Bishan Sarup respondent by cancelling the demand of Rs. 1,676.35 as not justified, and further directing that the demand of Rs. 2,700/- be reviewed after thoroughly verifying the record, the sanctioned load, and the excess load if any. The remaining electrical charges levied by the Electricity Board were held to be justified. As regards Dinesh Kumar respondent, it was directed that the charges with regard to fans be excluded and the bill be reduced accordingly.
7. On notice of these appeals being served on the respondents, they have filed detailed cross-objections to the appeals, inter alia, raising the bar of limitation, and
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
