Delhi

StateCommission

FA/1028/2013

PUNEET GOEL - Complainant(s)

Versus

BSES YAMUNA (P). LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

25 Aug 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision: 03.09.2015

 

First Appeal-1028/2013

 

(Arising out of the order dated 23.08.2013  passed by the

District Forum, Tis Hazari, Delhi in complaint case 510/2008)

 

        In the Matter of:

 

                Puneet Goel,

        S/o Sh. Rattan Lal Gupta,

        3626, Faiz Bazar, Darya Ganj,

        Delhi-110002

……Appellant     Versus   BSES Yamuna Power Limited, Through Manager Legal, Darya Ganj, Delhi-110002                                       …….Respondent

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

Salma Noor, Member

 

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the   judgment? 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

1.             The appeal is directed against order dated 23.08.2013 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (North) Tis Hazari, Delhi. The complaint was dismissed on the ground of maintainability. It was observed that connection was commercial and so the complainant did not qualify to be Consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (i) (d) Consumer Protection Act. The complainant argued before the District Forum that he had applied for change of connection to domestic but their request had not been acceeded to. Therefore, his complaint was maintainable. The District Forum rejected the same on the ground that as on that date the connection was non domestic connection and no relief in the form of mandatory injunction for converting connection to domestic was prayed nor could be given by the forum.

2.             In appeal the plea of the appellant is that he applied for a new electric connection on 27.06.2008, respondent issued demand note on 01.07.2008 for 6000/- for service line-cum-development charges and for security. So, the respondent was required to provide new service line but it had not done so. Rather, it had only changed the new meter with the old service line existing at the site. He applied for refund of Rs. 3000/- charged for service line-cum-development charges and for refund of Rs. 1200/- deposited by him for security deposit. That is why he filed the complaint for refund of aforesaid amount.

3.             In reply, the respondent has stated that it is entitled to charge service line-cum-development charges as well as security amount as per regulation 30 (iii) of Delhi Electricity Supplies Code and performance standard regulations 2007.

4.             We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. During arguments the counsel for the appellant tried to make out a new case that his connection was non domestic. It was not commercial. According to him ‘Non domestic’ is out from commercial. First of all this has not been pleaded in the grounds of appeal. Secondly, we do not find any force in said contention. What is non domestic is commercial.

5.             The counsel for the appellant also relied upon decision in V. Shashidharan Vs. Peter Karmakar AIR 1983 Supreme Court 1700. In that case it was held that office of lawyer is not a commercial establishment within the ambit of Kerala Shops Commercial Establishment Act 1960. In the present case, the appellant has no where pleaded in the complaint or in the appeal that he is an advocate or is using the premises for office of an advocate. Thus, cited decision is not applicable.

6.             The appellant has also relied upon decision of Tamilnadu Electricity Ombudsmen in appeal petition no. 36/10 titled as G. Gharmraja Advocate Vs. Esquire ERP Rengaraj decided on 21.09.2011. In that case the plea of the petitioner that no commercial activity was being carried on and levy of tariff V was not accepted either by Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum or by the Electricity Ombudsmen. It is not clear as to how this judgment helps the appellant.   

7.             We do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.

Copies be sent to both the parties free of cost as per rules. The copy of order be sent to District Forum.

                File be consigned to record room.

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

 

(Salma Noor)

Member

 

 

 

Rakeeba