DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (CENTRAL)ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI

COMPLAINT CASE NO.78/2020

No. DF/ Central/

vs.

Coram:       Ms. Rekha Rani, President

                    Shri R.C. Meena, Member

ORDER

Rekha Rani, President

1. Sh. Rajesh Khanna (in short the complainant) filed the instant complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against M/s BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. (in short OP) pleading therein that he is the co-owner of the property bearing no. 5/69 (Ground Floor), WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110055 (in short the subject property).  It is further submitted that one electricity connection was installed in the subject property vide CA No. 100012138 in the name of previous owner Sh. Praveen Kumar.  Further it is stated that OP was not issuing bills regularly causing inconvenience to the complainant.  It is stated that the complainant paid dues of electricity connection on 17.02.2017 but surprisingly the OP disconnected the electricity supply on 19.02.2017 without serving any notice or giving any reason and thereafter removed electricity meter in February 2018. Further it is stated that complainant made many representations to the OP dated 27.02.17,02.11.17,06.06.2018, 02.12.2019 and lastly on 31.08.2020 for restoration of electricity supply but the OP did not restore the electricity supply. It is further pleaded that OP sent a final bill dated 21.02.2018 for Rs.93,302/- for the period from February, 2017 to February 2018.  It is stated that the said bill is illegal being on higher side and therefore not payable by the complainant.  The complainant has prayed for direction to the OP to restore the electricity connection in the subject property and pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-. 

2. We have heard Sh. Vinod Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the complainant.  We have also perused the case file.

3. Complainant has placed on record final electricity bill qua the subject property dated 09.03.2018 for Rs.93,302/-.  It is alleged by the complainant in para 8 of the complaint that the bill is exorbitant and therefore not payable by him.  The said bill is in the name of one Sh. Praveen Kumar.  The name of the complainant is Sh.Rajesh Khanna.  The complainant has not placed on record any document to prove his locus standi qua the electricity connection in the subject property. 

4. Further the tariff category of the final bill of electricity dated 09.03.2018 is non-domestic.  Complainant therefore does not fall in the category of “Consumer” as defined under Section of 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act-2019, which is reproduced as under:

“(7) "consumer" means any person who—

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised

or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii) hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid

or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause,—

(a) the expression "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment;

(b) the expressions "buys any goods" and "hires or avails any services" includes offline or online transactions through electronic means or by teleshopping or direct selling or multi-level marketing;”

It may be noted that the expression hiring or availing any services, which was there in the Explanation appended to Section 2(1)(d) of the old Consumer Protection Act of 1986,has been omitted by the Legislature in the new Consumer Protection Act of 2019 indicating the intention of the Legislature to confer benefit of the Explanation (a) to only buyer of goods.

5. Same issue arose before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in U.P.  Power Corporation Ltd. &Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmad in CA No. 5466 of 2012 arising out of SLP (C) No. 35906 of 2011 dated 01.07.2013 in which U. P. Power Corporation Ltd. raised the question of maintainability of the Petition on the ground that the complainant had commercial electricity connection and therefore he did not fall within the definition of Consumer as defined under Section of 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act-1986. 

6. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held in Para 24 that Anis Ahmed and other complainants “had electrical connections for industrial/commercial purpose and, therefore, they do not come within the meaning of ‘consumer' as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; they cannot be treated as complainant nor they are entitled to file any ‘complaint' before the Consumer Forum.”

7. Last but not the least para 4 of the complaint is relevant for determination whether the complaint is filed within limitation or not as per Section 69 (1) of Consumer Protection Act-2019 which reads as under:

“69. (1) The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission

shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the

cause of action has arisen…….

8. In para 4 of the Complaint, it is pleaded that although the complainant paid the dues on 17.02.2017 but the officials of the OP visited the subject property and disconnected electricity supply on 19.02.2017.  In the prayer clause the complainant has prayed for restoration of the electricity supply to the subject property. Accordingly cause of action for filing the complaint arose on 19.02.2017. Complaint was filed on 13.10.2020.  The same is therefore clearly barred by limitation. 

9. Apex Court in Hameed Joharan Vs. Abdul Salam, (2001) 7 SCC 573 made the following observations:-

“Law courts never tolerate an indolent litigant since delay defeats equity - the Latin maxim vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt (the law assists those who are indolent). As a matter of fact, lapse of time is a species for forfeiture of rights……"

10. In CicilyKallarackal Vs Vehicle Factory, IV (2012) CPJ 1 (SC)-VIII, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that while dealing with an application for condonation of delay special courts/ tribunals must keep in mind the special period of limitation prescribed under the statue(s) and further that condoning inordinate delay without any sufficient cause would amount to substituting the period of limitation in place of the period prescribed by the Legislature when the statures so prescribes.

11. In Baswaraj&Anr. vs. Spl.Land Acquisition Officer 2013 (14) SCC 81 the Hon’ble Supreme court held that it is settled legal proposal that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party so it has to be applied with all its rigor when the statute so prescribes.

12. In Sanjay Sidgonda Patil Vs Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd &Ors, the Apex Court while dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013 decided on 17.12.2013, upheld the order of the National Commission wherein delay of 13 days was not condoned.

13. In view of the above discussion the complaint is dismissed as not maintainable. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced on this 2nd___ day of March 2021.