HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. DINESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(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 ? Whether a contesting respondent in an appeal under Sec.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.