CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110016
Case No.638/2009
MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
48, PART-C, RAMA ROAD,
NAZAFGARH ROAD INDUSTRIAL AREA,
NEW DELHI 110015 …..COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD.
(A JOINT VENTURE OF RELIANCE ENERGY LTD.
AND GOVERNMENT OF DELHI)
BSES BHAWAN, NEHRU PLACE,
NEW DELHI – 110019.
- ENFORCEMENT CELL,
BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD.,
NEAR ANDREWS GANJ MARKET/ POST OFFICE,
ANDREWS GANJ,
NEW DELHI - 110049. …..RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution-28.08.2009
Date of Order- 20.01.2023
O R D E R
RITU GARODIA-MEMBER
The complaint pertains to deficiency on the part of the OP in providing electricity.
The brief facts of the complaint are the complainant is in the business of manufacturing readymade garments under the name and style of BENZ TROUSERS. The complainant was running his business from his own premises. Due to sealing drive undertaken by municipal authority, he had to move to another premises on 1.5.2007. Thereafter, he shifted to another premises bearing No. RZB- 208, Nangloi, Delhi- 41, in the year 2008.
The complainant submits that the said premises had an electric connection under domestic category with a sanctioned load of 1KW. The complainant had shifted to these premises to carry out commercial activity and he applied for a separate electricity connection under the category ‘non domestic use’ for a load of 5 KW. The complainant deposited 10,500/- and OP issued a receipt for the same. A separate meter bearing K. No. 263018063145 and meter No. 23773518 was installed.
The complainant submits that he started his business activity from 1.4.2009. He received regular electric bill which he paid promptly. On 2.8.2008, the complainant noticed some sparks emanating from the said meter. A complaint was made. OP officials inspected the meter on 4.8.2008 / 5.8.2008. The officials told the complainant that there was some loose connection with respect to earthing resulting in heavy sparking. Thereafter, the electric supply was restored. On 11.8.2008 the complainant noticed that the display on the meter was not working. A complaint was lodged with OP. The complaint was attended by one Mr. Krishan on 12.8.2008. The said officials observed that the meter was faulty and need to be replaced. On 28.8.2008, the faulty meter was replaced.
On 4.4.2009, the complainant applied for disconnection/ surrender of the electric meter. To The complainant’s surprise, he discovered that there was a complaint pending against him at the enforcement cell of OP. An order dated 25.3.2009 by the enforcement cell against him was delivered to his neighbours as his premises were locked. It is alleged that the said order was passed without following the procedure laid down under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. Consequently, a penalty amounting to Rs. 1,98,782/- was imposed on the complainant.
The complainant’s assessment bill of Rs. 1,98,782/- was reduced to Rs. 82,000/- by OP. The complainant paid the same on 23.4.2009 under pressure and coercion. A legal notice dated 12.5.2009 was sent to OP. The complainant prays that the assessment bill for Rs. 1,98,782/- may be declared illegal and not binding on complainant. He also prays for refund of Rs. 82,000/- paid to OP, a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards litigation expenses.
OP in its reply stated the complaint is not maintainable as the present complaint pertains to theft of electricity. It is submitted that this Commission has no jurisdiction as per the mandate of Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003. OP has relied on judgments of various Courts and Commissions.
On merits, OP states that a single phase electronic meter bearing meter bearing K. NO. 263018063145 and meter No. 23773518 was installed in the name of complainant. It was replaced on 29.8.2008. The sealed old meter was sent to NABL, a credited meter testing laboratory. The lab declared that the meter was tampered vide its report dated 3.12.2008. On 19.12.2008 an inspection team assessed that a load of 9.01 KW was being used for non-domestic purposes against sanctioned load of 5 KW. OP prays that the present complaint be dismissed.
OP has also filed an application for dismissal of the complaint on the ground of non-maintainability as per Section 145 of Electricity Act, 2003. The facts stated in the reply have been reiterated in the application. Both the parties have filed the evidence by way of affidavit.
We have heard the arguments by both the parties and perused the material on record. It is admitted by both the parties that the meter was applied by the complainant for non-domestic / commercial purposes. It is also admitted that an assessment report under section 126, 135 and 138 was passed by OP for theft of electricity. The Hon’ble Supreme Court U.P Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs Anis Ahmed- (2013) 8SCC491 has observed that from a bare reading a Section 2 (1) (d), of Consumer Protection Act 1986 it is clear that persons availing services for commercial purpose do not fail within the meaning of the consumer and cannot be complainant for the purpose of filing the complaint before the consumer forum.
For proper appreciation we refer to Section 135 which relates to “theft of electricity”. Interference with meters or work of licensee, taping of electricity, making or causing to be made any connection with overhead, underground or under water lines or cables, or services wires, or service facilities of a licensee; tempering of meter, installation or use of tempered meter, loop connection or any other device or method which interferes with accurate or proper registration, calibration or metering of electric current or otherwise results in a manner whereby electricity is stolen or wasted; damaging or destroys of an electrical meter, apparatus, equipment, use of electricity through a tampered meter; use of electricity for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorised constitute “ theft of electricity “ and constitute “offence” under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
A “complaint” against the assessment made by assessing officer under Section 126 or against the offences committed under Section 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum”.
It is clear that complainant was using the premises for non-domestic/ commercial purpose. The penalty imposed in the disputed electricity bill was also related to the theft of electricity under Section 126,135 and 138. Hence, the consumer complaint for non-domestic / commercial use of electricity and disputes regarding penalty imposed for theft of electricity is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act. Hence, the complaint is dismissed.
