DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.435/2012

Sh. Satish Mittal,

124-A-B, (Gr. Floor),

Shahid Jeet Singh Marg,

Katwaria Sarai,

Qutub Institutional Area,

New Delhi-110016                                                       ….Complainant

Versus

BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.,

A-1/27, Safdarjung Enclave,

New Delhi-110029.                                                   ….Opposite Party

                                                Date of Institution        : 31.08.12        Date of Order      : 04.06.19

Coram:

Sh. A.S. Yadav, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

1. Succinctly put, the complainant Satish Mittal, a tenant in the demised premises runs a garment shop. The sanctioned electricity load for the shop is 12 KV with a three phase meter. Since the complainant took the premises on rent it was observed that the electricity bill received by the complainant was inflated by about 40 to 50 per cent of the total utilized load / consumption.
   1. It is averred that the total usable connected load at the premises of the complainant is only 5.2 KW for all seasons. The average load for 12 months stands reduced to 3 KW. Therefore in such a situation the average bill according to the complainant should not exceed Rs.10,000/- whereas he was getting bills exceeding Rs.20,000/- per month and has been regularly paying the bills.
   2. It is next averred that on receiving the bills which were exceedingly high, the complainant has been asking OP to have his meter checked but all in vain.
   3. Thus, aggrieved the complainant approached this Forum with the following prayer:-

1. Be directed to accept the payment of electricity consumed as per the payment of electricity consumed as per connected load and not as per assumptive load.
2. Be restricted to disconnect the electricity connection of the premises of the Suit premise till the disposal of the complaint.
3. Be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation of excess billing amount charged due to faulty electric meter.
4. Be directed to pay Rs.33,000/- as cost of litigation keeping in view the no. of appearances before this Forum.

2. OP resisted the complaint inter-alia raising preliminary objection that the complainant has not filed any supportive document to establish himself to be a consumer in the eyes of law and on this ground alone the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
   1. OP submits that upon the request of the complainant OP has already tested/ checked the meter of the complainant on 18.09.2012. The meter testing reports shows ‘Meter Ok’. Further OP has been sending bills to the complainant on the basis of actual reading. Copy of the meter testing report dated 18.09.2012 is annexed which we mark as Mark-A for the sake of identification.
   2. OP has vehemently denied that it has over charged or sent inflated electricity bill to the complainant. It is submitted that the OP has been raising the bill on the basis of actual reading of the electricity consumption. OP further submits that the complainant has not given any specific period and billing date against the allegation raised by him. The complainant is trying to mislead the Forum by submitting average mathematical aspect.
   3. Hence, the prayer to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost and direct the complainant to pay Rs.10,000/- for filing false and frivolous complaint.
3. Despite the opportunity the complainant did not file any replication.
4. Complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Sharad Pandey Assistant Vice President BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. has been filed on behalf of OP.
5. Both the parties have filed their respective written arguments. 
6. At the outset it is noticed that the electricity bill of complainant’s connection is raised as non-domestic tariff category. Therefore, the tariff category being ‘Non-Domestic’  the complainant is not a consumer and as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(d) defines Consumer as follows:-

“(i) buys any goods …………………

2. [hires or avails of] any services 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 services other than the person who 12 [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 13 [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose];

The electricity in ‘Non-Domestic’ tariff category in the shop is being used to enhance the profit or for commercial activity of the complainant. Therefore, the case is not maintainable in this Forum.

7. However, since the case pertains to the year 2012 we will deal with the merits of the case as well. The complainant in his prayer has prayed to issue directions to OP to check the meter in question and to accept the payment according to the electricity consumed as per the connected load. Additionally, some amounts towards compensation and legal expense have also been sought.
8. It is noticed that OP has already tested/ checked the meter of the complainant on 18.09.2012 and the meter testing report shows ‘Meter Ok’. It is also noticed that the meter has been checked by OP on 18.09.2012 that is almost immediately after filing of the complaint on 31.08.2012.
9. The complainant despite having being given the opportunity to file rejoinder has failed to do so. In his evidence by way of affidavit as well as written arguments the complainant has reiterated the averments made in the complaint and not stated a single word regarding testing of the meter on his request which has come out to be Ok.
10. Hence, in the facts and circumstances stated above, we are of the opinion that OP has been raising bills on the basis of actual reading of the electricity consumption and has indeed not been over charging or sending inflated bills to the complainant.
11. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.Thereafter file be consigned to record room.   

Announced on 04.06.19