MAHINDER BANSAL Vs. SDO, CITY SUB DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The whole controversy centers around the question "Whether the complainant is a "consumer" under the Act?" Sh. Paramanad had the electricity connection bearing No. AC No.B-100. The respondent/opposite party SDO, Sub-Division, UHBVNL, Jhajjar, Haryana, issued a demand notice in the sum of Rs.2,06,598/- in respect of the above said electricity connection. Mahinder Bansal, the complainant who is a Shopkeeper, by profession, is having electricity connection in his Shop and House, in other premises. The complainant went to offer his prayer in Baba Shri Parsad Giriji Mandir, Mata Gata, Jhajjar on 18.07.2007. He found the officials of the respondent were being present there. They checked the premises of the Mandir and obtained the signatures of the petitioner, as a witness. They also threatened the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.2,06,598/-, otherwise, the supply of electricity connection to his shop and residence, in another premises, would be disconnected. Out of fear, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.2,06,598/- with the respondent under pressure and coercion. He also lodged a protest regarding the same. He filed a complaint with the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed the respondent to refund the amount of Rs.2,06,598/- to the complainant within one month. The said amount was refunded.

(2.) The respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission came to the conclusion that the appellant/ respondent herein, is not a "consumer".

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He vehemently argued that since the money was demanded from the complainant, he paid the same, and, therefore, he became the "consumer", under the respondent.