CHAND SINGHAppella vs SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SUB-DIVISION OFFICE, P.S.E.B.

IT is an appeal against the order dated 10.5.2000 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (hereinafter called the District Forum).

THE complaint of appellant-complainant (herinafter called the complainant) was dismissed by the District Forum on the ground that he was not a consumer of the respondent-O.Ps. (hereinafter called the O.Ps.). After carefully going through the contents of the complaint as well as written version filed by the parties and after perusing the documents on the file, District Forum held as under: The Counsel for the opposite parties have raised one objection on the ground that the opposite parties are supplying the electric energy to the tubewell of the complainant free of costs and without charging any consumption charges under the scheme launched by State Government. Thus in view of these circumstances when no consideration is being charged from the complainant for supply of electricity, the complainant is not a consumer and thus this case does not fall under Section 2(1)(d) of CPA, 1986. The Counsel for the opposite party has also referred a circular CC No. 8/1997 which was issued vide memo No. 95/845/CC/T-2/Rev/V-4, dated 8.3.1997. The perusal of this circular further reveals that the State Government has issued instructions to P.S.E.B. to give free electricity supply to all categories of agriculture tubewells with effect from 14.2.1997. The learned Counsel further contended that in view of the circular referred supra the opposite party is not charging any consumption charges from the complainant and thus the complainant is not a consumer and he is not entitled to file this complaint before this Forum as this case relates to the period for the month of 6/1999. Thus the complaint of the complainant deserves dismissal. To the contrary, the learned Counsel for the complainant failed to show any law vide which he may establish that he is a consumer. Admittedly, he is not paying anything to the opposite party for consumption of the electricity. Thus under the circumstances we are of the determined view that the complainant is not proved to be a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the CPA, 1986, and thus he is not entitled to file this complaint. Thus the complaint is likely to fail on this sole legal ground. We, therefore, dismiss the complaint of the complainant but leave the parties to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

We do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. It is not disputed that the O.Ps. were supplying electricity energy free of costs and without charging any consumption charges under the scheme launched by the State Government. No consideration was being charged from the complainant for supply of electricity. The District Forum has thus rightly held that the complainant is not the consumer of the O.Ps. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed as meritless. Appeal dismissed.