ORDER

29.11.2023

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. Complainant filed complaint u/s 12 of C.P. Act 1986 against Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as OP) seeking direction to withdraw the debit adjustment of Rs. 1,77,910.99 along with LPSC and other charges and to direct OP not to disconnect supply of CA NO. 600017626445 and further direct the OP to pay Rs. 20,000/- as damages for harassment and Rs. 21,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. In brief facts of the present case are that complainant is the permanent resident of abovementioned address and has electricity connection vide Meter NO. 44187328 which was replaced on 05.09.2014 by from old meter 43206233 vide CA No. 600017626445. It is stated that complainant has been paying all regular consumption charges. It is further stated that the electricity connection has been used for self purposes and complainant has never ever done anything wrong against respondents and readers of respondents who are taking readings of the meters in each and every billing cycle.
3. It is stated that respondent on 05.09.2014 sent a notice for testing of meter against meter No. 43206233 vide CA No. 600017626445 to the complainant in which time of meter testing mentioned at 3.10 pm on 24.09.2014 and date of service mentioned 09.09.2014. It is further stated that on 24.09.2014 the complainant visited the meter testing lab but somehow forgot to carry the original Identity card and the gate keeper didn’t allow him to witness the meter testing and when it was requested by complainant that he shuld tell the officers inside to grant a new date than he said he has no authority. It is stated that complainant is not so educated and does not understand English unless and until explained in vernacular.
4. It is stated that complainant was not aware that to witness the meter testing identity card be must. It is further stated that nobody who issued notice to the testing the meter explained the contents of the notice dated 05.09.2014 in vernacular. It is stated that it was the duty of respondent who issued yet another notice if somehow complainant missed the opportunity of meter testing but as it was pre planned and conspiracy innocent consumer the respondent didn’t bother the principle of natural justice and let the complainant suffer a lot. It is further stated that somehow the complainant on repeated request manange to enter the lab but all in vain as the testing was almost over. Hence technically complainant couldn’t witness the meter testibg but was forced to put the signature without declare the result and till date respondent has not issued meter test report to the complainant.
5. It is stated that despite proper functioning of electric meter  in question the official of respondent removed the meter in question on 05.09.2014 and taken into their custody and thereafter alleged inspecting team installed fresh electric meter with same meter no. 44187328 vide CA No. 600017626445. It is further stated that complainant is paying regular bill in May 2014 of Rs. 1910, June 2014 Rs. 3,860, July 2014 Rs. 1660, November 2014 Rs. 5860, December 2014 Rs. 7,400/- January 2015 Rs. 1500, February Rs. 2,040, March 2015 Rs. 4210/- April 2015 Rs. 5420/- , June 2015 Rs. 2150/- and July 2015 Rs. 4140.
6. It is stated that all the bills were coming on the basis of reading for the actual consumption and on each bill under the “bill remarked” it is mentioned as “bill on reading” which means that reader was taking the readings of the meter and the bill coming on the basis of actual reading. It is further state that to the atmost shock and surprise in the month of August 2015 respondent issued a false and baseless bill of Rs. 1840.90/- vide bill No. 010026271386 with due date of 13.08.2015 showing the unjustified and illegal adjustment of Rs. 1,77,910/- without any justification and prior notice. It is further stated that complainant rushed to the office of Respondent and even office was having no knowledge of the bill and its calculation.
7. It is stated that  one of the official in the department stated that meter of the complainant was tested and there was no display hence adjustment has been done and a debit of JE of Rs. 1,77,910.99 was passed on the basis that bills were not coming on the reading but when it was countered by the complainant that each and every bill it was mentioned that bills were coming reading basis and each and every billing cycle the meter readers were coming at site to take readings of the meter and no body objected to the same hence present debit adjustment of Rs. 1,77,910.99 is not payable by the complainant in any manner whatsoever. But the respondent has turned its deaf years to the genuine request of complainant.
8. It is stated that meter in question bearing No. 43206233 vide CA No. 600017626445 was never ever tested as per rules and no report has been provided to the complainant till date and no justification regarding debit has been given to the complainant in order to show monopolistic attitude and with another reason that complainant is not liable to pay the same there was no discrepancy in the meter but it ordered to give wrongful loss to the complainant the respondent issued the baseless bill in hand.
9. It is stated that as per the regulation 37 DERC the meter shall be read in every billing cycle and it shall be the duty of the licencee to check the condition of the LED on the electronic meter and there are other responsibilities casted upon the respondent while getting the reading of the meter but in the present case respondent and its readers has put the law on stake and has willfully ignored the mandate of law and hence disobeyed DERC, 2007 guidelines. It is further stated that impugned bill is prima facie is illegal and unjustified which has been issue to harass the innocent complainant and on the other side the respondent is threatening to disconnect the electricity as officials came to the premises of the complainant on 31.08.2015 and thereatened to disconnect the electrity immediately on the non payment. It is further stated that the officials asked the complaiant to give post dated cheques  and under pressure and thereat of disconnection complainant issued two post dated cheques No. 281152 and 281153 drawn on state bank of Patiala dated 09.09.2015 and 15.09.2015 each of Rs. 92,000/- which is not payable by the complainant in any manner whatsoever. The complainant before approaching the Hon’ble Forum got stopped payment of cheques to his bank due to the reason that they were issued under the threat and for the illegal and unsjutified alleged dues.
10. It is stated that the meters were tested in September 2014 in the absence of complainant and impugned bill was raised after the span in one year without giving opportunity in any notice therefore liable to be set aside as there was no discrepence in the meter. It is further stated that bill is not payable by complainant being false, illegal and baseless and based on wrong unjustified meter testing hence present complaint filed.
11. We have heard Sh. Harish Purohit AR for OP and perused the record. The complainant and his counsel despite giving sufficient opportunity failed to address oral arguments.  
12. In these circumstances the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shrikant G. Mantri Vs Punjab National Bank laid down the prinicple of law in civil appeal no.11397 of 2016 dated 22.02.2022 that

32. The purpose of the said Act has been succinctly described by this Court in the case of , which is as under:

“10. A review of the provisions of the Act discloses that the quasi-judicial bodies-authorities/agencies created by the Act known as District Forums, State Commissions and the National Commission are not courts though invested with some of the powers of the civil court. They are quasi-judicial tribunals brought into existence to render inexpensive and speedy remedies to consumers. It is equally clear that these forums/commissions were not supposed to supplant but supplement the existing judicial system. The idea was to provide an additional forum providing inexpensive and speedy resolution of disputes arising between consumers and suppliers of goods and services. The forum so created is uninhibited by the requirement of court fee or the formal procedures of a court. Any consumer can go and file a complaint. Complaint need not necessarily be filed by the complainant himself; any recognized consumers’ association can espouse his cause. Where a large number of consumers have a similar complaint, one or more can file a complaint on behalf of all. Even the Central Government and State Governments can act on his/their behalf. The idea was to help the consumers get justice and fair treatment in the matter of goods and services purchase and availed by them in a market dominated by large trading and manufacturing bodies. Indeed, the entire Act revolves round the consumer and is designed to protect his interest. The Act provides for “business-to-consumer” disputes and not for “business-to-business” disputes. This scheme of the Act, in our opinion, is relevant to and helps in interpreting the words that fall for consideration in this appeal”.

33. It could thus be seen that this Court has clearly held that the idea of enacting the said Act was to help the consumers get justice and fair treatment in the matter of goods and services purchased and availed by them in a market dominated by large trading and manufacturing bodies. It has been held that the entire Act revolves round the consumer and is designed to protect his interest. It provides for “business-to-consumer” disputes and not for “business-to-business” disputes. It has been held that forums/commissions provided by the said Act are not supposed to supplant but supplement the existing judicial system. The idea was to provide an additional forum providing inexpensive and speedy resolution of disputes arising between consumers and suppliers of goods and services.

34. In the case of (supra), this Court, while considering the scope of the definition of the expression ‘consumer’ with relation to Section 2 (1)(d)(i) of he said Act and the Explanation added by 1993 Amendment Act, observed thus:

“11.Now coming back to the definition of the expression ‘consumer’ in Section 2(d), a consumer means insofar as is relevant for the purpose of this appeal, (I) a person who buys any goods for consideration; it is immaterial whether the consideration is paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or whether the payment of consideration is deferred; (ii) a person who uses such goods with the approval of the person who buys such goods for consideration; (iii) but does not include a person who buys such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose. The expression ‘resale’ is clear enough. Controversy has, however, arisen with respect to meaning of the expression “commercial purpose”. It is also not defined in the Act. In the absence of a definition, we have to go by its ordinary meaning. ‘Commercial’ denotes “pertaining to commerce” (Chamber’s Twentieth Century Dictionary); it means “connected with, or engaged in commerce; mercantile; having profit as the main aim” (Collins English Dictionary) whereas the word ‘commerce’means “financial transactions especially buying and selling of merchandise, on a large scale” (Concise Oxford Dictionary). The National Commission appears to have been taking a consistent view that where a person purchases goods “with a view to using such goods for carrying on any activity on a large scale for the purpose of earning profit” he will not be a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(d)(i) of the Act. Broadly affirming the said view and more particularly with a view to obviate any confusion-the expression “large scale” is not a very precise expression-Parliament stepped in and added the explanation to Section 2(d)(i) by Ordinance/Amendment Act, 1993. The explanation excludes certain purposes from the purview of the expression “commercial purpose”- a case of exception to an exception. Let us elaborate: a person who buys a typewriter or a car and uses them for his personal use is certainly a consumer but a person who buys a typewriter or a car for typing others’ work for consideration or for plying the car as a taxi can be said to be using the typewriter/car for a commercial purpose. The explanation however clarifies that in certain situations, purchase of goods for “commercial purpose” would not yet take the purchaser out of the definition of expression ‘consumer’. If the commercial use is by the purchaser himself for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, such purchaser of goods is yet a ‘consumer’. In the illustration given above, if the purchaser himself workson typewriter or plies the car as a taxi himself, her does not cease to be a consumer. In other words, if the buyer of goods uses them himself, i.e, by self-employment, for earning his livelihood, it would not be treated as a “commercial purpose” and he does not cease to be a consumer for the purposes of the Act. The explanation reduces the question, what is a “commercial purpose”, to a question of fact to be decided in the facts of each case. It is not the value of the goods that matters but the purpose to which the goods bought are put to. The several words employed in the explanation, viz, “uses them by himself”, “exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood” and “by means of self-employment” make the intention of Parliament abundantly clear, that the goods bought must be used by the buyer himself, by employing himself for earning his livelihood. A few more illustrations would serve to emphasise what we say. A person who purchases an auto-rickshaw to ply it himself on hire for earning his livelihood would be a consumer. Similarly, a purchaser of a truck who purchases it for plying it as a public carrier by himself would be a consumer. A person who purchases a lathe machine or other machine to operate it himself for earning his livelihood would be a consumer. (In the above illustrations, if such buyer takes the assistance of one or two persons to assist/help him in operating the vehicle or machinery, he does not cease to be a consumer.) As against this a person who purchases an auto-rickshaw, a car or a lathe machine or other machine to be plied or operated exclusively by another person would not be a consumer. This is the necessary limitation flowing from the expressions “used by him”, and “by means of self-employment” in the explanation. The ambiguity in the meaning of the words “for the purpose of earning his livelihood” is explained and clarified by the other two sets of words.”

41.In the case of Leelavati Kirti Lal Mehta Medical Trust (supra)wherein this court after considering the earlier judgments held thus:

“19. To summarise from the above discussion, though a strait jacket formula cannot be adopted in every case, the following broad principles can be culled out for determining whether an activity or transaction is “fora commercial purpose”:

19.1. The question of whether a transaction is for a commercial purpose would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, ordinarily, “commercial purpose” is understood to include manufacturing/industrial activity or business-to-business transactions between commercial entities.

19.2 The purchase of the good or service should have a close and direct nexus with a profit-generating activity.

19.3 The identity of the person making the purchase or the value of the transaction is nto conclusive to the questionof whether it is for a commercial purpose. It has to be seen whether the dominant intention or dominant purpose for the transaction was tofacilitate some kind of profit generation forthe purchaser and/or their beneficiary.

19.4 If it is found that the dominant purpose behind purchasing the good or service was for the personal use and consumption of the purchaser and/or theirbeneficiary, or is otherwise not linked to any commercial activity, the question of whether such a purchase was for the purpose of “generating livelihood by means of sel-employment” need not be looked into.”

42. It is thus clear, that this Court has held that the question, as to whether a transaction is for a commercial purpose would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, ordinarily, “commercial purpose” is understood to include manufacturing/industrial activity or business-to-business transactions between commercial entities; that the purchase of the good or service should have a close and direct nexus with a profit-generating activity; that the identity of the person making the purchase or the value of the transaction is not conclusive for determining the question as to whether it is for a commercial purpose or not. What is relevant is the dominant intention or dominant purpose for the transaction and as to whether the same was to facilitate some kind of profit generation for the purchaser and/or their beneficiary.

13. In view of above discussed Shrikant G Mantri (supra) in the present fact and circumstances of the case present connection is for commercial purposes therefore, present complaint is not maintainable.
14. On the basis of above observation and discussion present complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. File be consigned to record room.
15. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  24.11.2023.

SANJAY KUMAR                                                           NIPUR CHANDNA

   PRESIDENT                                                                      MEMBER