1.       The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent(s) as detailed above, under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 12.01.2011 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharasthra, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No.309/2010 in which order dated 30.11.2009, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no 01/2009 was challenged, inter alia praying to set aside the order passed by the State Commission.

2.       While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as complainant) was Respondent and the Respondent(s) (hereinafter also referred to as OPs) were Appellants in the said FA/309/2010 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was complainant and Respondent(s) were OPs before the District Forum in the CC/01/2009.

3.       Notice was issued to the Respondent(s). Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 22.09.2023(Petitioner) and 20.09.2019 (Respondents) respectively.

4.       Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that:-

         
The complainant acquired flat No. 702 in 1993 from Mrs. Hema Murlidas Nagpal and has continuously resided there. Although the energy connection is registered under the builder's name, the complainant is responsible for settling the energy bills issued by the Company. Starting from August 2007, the complainant ceased receiving regular bills. Upon inquiry with the Company, a bill dated 17.12.2007, covering the entire year 2007, was provided, amounting to Rs. 47,980. Subsequently, a second bill of Rs. 50,590, dated 28.02.2008, was issued. Despite making partial payments, the Company disconnected the complainant's energy supply on 17.11.2008. Upon seeking information under the Right to Information Act, the complainant was informed that the meter, replaced on 04.03.2005, was not recorded and updated in the computer system until the year 2007. The bills were then charged based on meter readings after installment payments. Dissatisfied with this explanation and due to the non-restoration of energy supply, the complainant filed a consumer complaint.

5.       Vide Order dated 30.11.2009, in the CC no. 01/2009 the District Forum has partly allowed the complaint.

6.       Aggrieved by the said Order dated 30.11.2009 of District Forum, Respondent(s) appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 12.01.2011 in FA No. 309/2010 has set aside the District Forum’s order and allowed the appeal.  

7.       Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 12.01.2011 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

1. The State Commission made an error in allowing the First Appeal by overturning the District Forum's order. The State Commission declared that the petitioner/complainant is not a consumer since the bills are issued in the name of 'Nandwani Satish Santumal' and not in the complainant's name. Consequently, the State Commission considered that the complainant lacks a cause of action against the respondents/OPs, leading to the erroneous setting aside of the District Forum's order that allowed the complaint. The State Commission failed to consider that there are other residents in the same apartment, and the bills are issued by the OPs in the name of 'Nandwani Satish Santumal.' This practice is consistent for all residents, with bills bearing the same name but different flat numbers. The State Commission overlooked the fact that all bills for flats in the apartments are in the name of 'Nandwani Satish Santumal' with various flat numbers.

2. The State Commission committed a further error in overturning the District Forum's order by failing to consider that the complainant has consistently paid all bills from 1993 to the present date. The dispute arose concerning a sudden demand of about Rs.50,000/- in the bills dated 17.12.2007 and 28.2.2008 for the period two years prior to the bill dates. This amount is claimed to be due and was not reflected in earlier bills due to a mistake during the replacement of electricity meters in March 2005, where the previous meter reading was not mentioned. The demand for arrears was subsequently raised. The State Commission made another error in reversing the District Forum's order by not considering that the argument stating that the complainant is not the consumer of the OPs and, therefore, not entitled to relief, was not raised before the District Forum or the State Commission during the appeal process.

3. The State Commission has erred in observing in the impugned order that since the bills are issued in the name of one 'Nandwani Satish Santumal' and not in the name of the complainant herein, the complainant has no cause of action against the OPs. Therefore, the order passed by the District Forum, allowing the complaint, was erroneously set aside. The said ground was not even mentioned in the appeal, and the State Commission allowed the appeal on the said ground, which was not raised by the OPs in the written statement or in the appeal. Contrary to the fact that there are other residents in the same apartment and the bills are being issued by the OPs in the name of the same person, i.e., 'Nandwani Satish Santumal,' and not in the name of the other owner/occupant/residents of the various flats. The only distinction between the bills is the flat number, which means that all the bills of all the flats in the apartments are in the name of the same person, i.e., 'Nandwani Satish Santumal,' with different flat numbers.

8.       Heard counsels of both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

1. The counsel for petitioner/complainant contends that the State Commission made an error in its decision by not considering and overlooking Section 43 of the Electricity Act. This section recognizes and designates any occupier or owner of premises as a consumer for electricity consumption. The counsel refers to Section 43 of the Electricity Act, emphasizing that the distribution licensee is obligated to provide electricity supply to premises upon application by the owner or occupier. The State Commission failed to consider that the bills were indeed paid by the complainant, and this is evident from the receipts issued by the OPs as proof of payment. The counsel implies that the fulfillment of payment obligations should establish their status as a consumer under the Electricity Act.

2. The State Commission made additional errors in its decision, as it failed to acknowledge that, aside from the definition in Section 43 that entitles the complainant to be recognized as a consumer, there are other residents in a similar position who are acknowledged as consumers by the OP. These residents receive electricity supply with no objections regarding their status as consumers, similar to the complainant. The State Commission erred by not considering that the bills were not issued in the name of the complainant, and therefore, the complainant is not recognized as a consumer.

3. The counsel further asserted that the State Commission made an error by not considering that the OPs were not regular in issuing bills in the year 2007. As a response to this irregularity, the complainant approached the OPs, and an extract of the ledger dated 17.12.2007 for the year 2007 was handed over to the complainant, showing a sum of Rs 47,980/- due towards charges for electricity consumption. The counsel asserts that this contradicts the admitted fact that the bills were being paid, as acknowledged by the OPs in their written statement.

4. The counsel for respondents/OPs asserts that the petitioner/complainant is not a consumer because the electricity bill is issued in the name of "Nandwani Satish Santumal." Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as there is no relationship of a consumer and service provider. The bills for other flats in the building were issued in the names of different consumers, and "Nandwani Satish Santumal" is the actual consumer according to the records. The complainant was irregular in paying dues, and proper bills were issued in 2007. The complainant received extracts on CPL (Consumer Personal Ledger), indicating charges for December as Rs.47,980/-, including the amount for actual consumption. Regarding a bill dated 28/02/2008 for Rs.50,590/-, the counsel contends that it is correct based on actual consumption; the complainant did not pay the amount, resulting in the disconnection of electric supply. The complainant paid Rs.10,000/- on 18.03.2008, and installment options were granted, but the complainant failed to pay the remaining arrears.

5. The counsel argued that there was no error in the bill, and the question of rectification did not arise. The complainant paid Rs.2000/- on 21.04.2008, Rs.2360/- on 28.08.2008, but failed to pay the remaining arrears. The supply was disconnected, and the meter was removed on 17.11.2008, as it is the legal right to disconnect supply for defaulters. The increased charges in bills from December 2007 were clarified to the complainant when he approached the concerned offices. The complainant made an application for information about bill charges, and it was explained that details of meter change were not fed to the computer after 2005, resulting in average calculations for previous periods. The State Commission allowed the appeal on both merit and the ground that the complainant cannot be treated as a consumer as the electric bills are issued in the name of "Nandwani Satish Santumal" and not in his name.

6. The counsel further contends that the electric meter at the subject flats was changed on 04.03.2005, but due to human error, the billing department was not informed. The meter change information was conveyed on 07.01.2008, revealing a reading of 16153 units. The bill for Rs.47,980/- in December 2007 was issued based on this, but it remained unpaid. A subsequent bill for Rs.50,590/- in February 2008 was also unpaid, leading to the disconnection of electric supply. The complainant, after paying Rs.10,000/- on 18.03.2008, failed to clear the remaining arrears. The electric supply was restored on the complainant's request, following the payment of Rs.15,600/- on 12.01.2009, as directed by the District Forum. The State Commission allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint on 12.01.2011. Despite the final order, the complainant did not pay the arrears, leading to permanent disconnection on 06.07.2011. The bills for December 2007 and February 2008 are legal and correct, and the complainant is liable to pay the arrears along with subsequent charges. The OPs issued a bill offering Rs.28,250/-, 50% of the present arrears, to the complainant after receiving a copy of the order dated 14.10.2011 from the National Commission on interim application. The complainant was requested to deposit this amount to have the electric supply reconnected.

9.       We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission, District Forum, other relevant records and rival contentions of the parties. In certain situations like multistoried apartments, especially in the initial stages after allotment of flats, sometimes the electric connection is obtained in the name of builder/landowners and many a times the allotees of such flats continue with the electric connection remaining in the name of builder /landowners, but they pay the electric bills. Similarly in cases where houses/flats are rented out, though the tenant pays the electricity bills, the electric connection continues to be in the name of landlord. During the hearing, the counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the Electricity (Rights of Consumers) Rules, 2020 farmed by Government of India, Ministry of Power, in exercise of powers conferred under section 176 of the Electricity Act, 2003. These statutory rules define ‘Consumer’ as follows:-

"consumer" means any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a distribution licensee or the Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity to the public under this Act or any other law for the time being in force and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a distribution licensee, the Government or such other person, as the case may be;”

The above definition of Consumer clearly states that it includes a person whose premises are connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a distribution licensee. Hence, in the present case, considering that the complainant/Petitioner is the owner of the flat in question, has been paying the electricity bills to the respondent Electricity distribution company, and the same have been accepted by the respondent for a very long time, we are of the considered view that the complainant/petitioner is a consumer of the respondent electricity company under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, notwithstanding that the electricity connection is not in his name, but in the name of one ‘Nandwani Satish Santumal’. The complainant is in occupation of the flat since 1993, having purchased from one ‘Mrs. Hema Murlidas Nagpal’; State Commission, observing that the bills issued to the complainant are in the name of ‘Nandwani Satish Santumal’, these bills show no connection with the complainant or to his vendor ‘Mrs. Hema Murlidas Nagpal’ or even to M/s Satyaraj Construction, who is described and mentioned as ‘builder’ and to claim the status of beneficial consumer he must avail energy supply with the approval of the company with the consent of the consumer on record, concluded that complainant is not a consumer. State Commission further observed that there exist no inter se relationship between the complainant and the company as a ‘consumer’ and service provider assuming jurisdiction by Consumer fora is per se illegal, may not stand in the eyes of law. In our considered view, once the State Commission comes to such a finding it ought to have stopped here and not proceeded further with the case on merits. But in this case, State Commission considered the case on merits too, assumed the complainant to be a consumer and observed that there is hardly any evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant to substantiate his claim. But the State Commission did not give any cogent reasons to set aside the findings of District Forum, except observing that ledger statement on record, which is undisputed document, does corroborate the case of company that after the information to the computer was updated on the basis of actual reading, the bill was raised claiming the arrears in the year 2007 and such an act not being contrary to the provisional of the Electricity Act, 2003, no deficiency in service on the part of company could be alleged. State Commission’s observation “looking from any angle since the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and since even if he is a consumer,…” shows the State Commission has not given a categorical finding whether complainant is a consumer or not, as in the situation of a categorical finding on complainant not being a consumer, State Commission ought not have gone further into the case on merits.

10.    In view of the foregoing, and keeping in view of definition of Consumer in the Electricity (Rights of Consumers) Rules, 2020 cited, we are of the considered view that State Commission went wrong in concluding that complainant is not a consumer. Hence, we set aside the findings of State Commission on this count. On merits, after having carefully gone through the orders of District Forum, we are of the view that District Forum has given a detailed and well-reasoned order, duly keeping in view the evidence before it and after suitably addressing the rival contentions of the parties; State Commission went wrong in reversing and setting aside a well-reasoned order of the District Forum on merits. Hence, the order of the State Commission cannot be sustained and the same is hereby set aside and order of District Forum is restored. District Forum has given following reasons in support of its finding:-

“The Opposite party has filed the reply and mentioned that till December, 2007 regular bill were given to the complainant and the complainant has regularly paid the said bills to the Opponent such thing is admitted on the basis of affidavit but later on in the written statement it is mentioned that on 04.03.2005 the previous meter was removed and the other meter was fixed and because, of the mistake of the Assistant Engineer at that time the reading of the previous meter was taken but it was not noted in the computer and so the amount remained to be recovered and so when this thing came to the knowledge later on in March, 2005 amount was recovered and regarding that 16152 unit electricity utilization reading is parted in equal parts and alongwith the current bills the said arrears of amount bills are given such thing is mentioned in the reply but regarding this contention no documentary evidence is filed before the forum by the opponent and the forum cannot believe whether such incident occurred because regarding this aspect there is no clinching evidence and supporting proof and so complainant was sent the bill by the opposite party for the year 2005 of arrears of amount the said bill is false and the said bill is given on the basis of assumption this is proved and so the-bills are without any proof and so the opposite party does not have any right to recover the disputed bills amount from the complainant and from time to time the disconnection of electricity for recovering such amount this thing is the monopoly of the opponent and this is unfair trade practice no information is given regarding the recovery of amount and no notice no written information and without giving the notice to disconnect electric supply is a very serious aspect and totally illegal Indian Electricity Act is a personal (separate) special act and the opponent is taking disadvantage of the said act for recovering the huge amount by cheating, deceiving and pressuring the consumers and accordingly this thing is done by the opponent this things is proved by the complainant. The deficiency in service carelessness has been done by the opponent and so the complainant deserves the compensation regarding physical, mental, economical, harassment and torture and so the opposite party it is binding to fulfill the order and also it is binding upon the opposite party to give the compensation and cost of the application old meter no. and present meter no. is not mentioned and the account record which has been filed has been made by whom, where and how it is noted and whether it is true or not regarding that also affidavit is not filed in that also there is no seal and date and so it is doubtful and so I passed the below mentioned order.”          

11.     For the reasons stated hereinabove, and after giving a thoughtful consideration to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, various pleas raised by the learned Counsel for the Parties, the RP is allowed. Order of State Commission dated 12.01.2011 is set aside; order of District Forum dated 30.11.2009 is restored. Respondent herein should implement the order within 30 days from today.

12.     The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.