ORDER

28.03.2024

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. In brief the facts of the present case are that complainant is a consumer having office no.301, 3^rd floor, Bhanot Bhawan, Plot No.B-1/2, Commercial Complex Azadpur,Delhi-110033, measuring area 320 sq. ft. It is stated that OP, a company having at Hudson Lines, Kingsway camp, Delhi 110009 is the licensee and electricity service provider in North Delhi covering the area of the complainant.
2. It is stated that on 09.08.2012, the complainant made a request to the OP through customer  care telephone number 66111912 for new electricity connection of 3KW load, category non-domestic light for the premises office no.301 as above and accordingly the OP accepted all the details as required and the confirmation given as a request acceptance no.2003189687. It is further stated that 21.08.2012, the OP after verification and acceptance of the application issued a demand note vide notification no.2003189687 amounting Rs.7,500/- to the complainant and accordingly the complainant deposited cash Rs.7,500/- on the same day vide cash receipt CA No.60015762051 dated 21.08.2012. It is stated that that OP did not take any step to energize the new electricity connection to the complainant’s premises within a time period of 12 days after receipt of the payment as per the regulation 16(VII) of DERC Supply Code and Performance Standards Regulations, 2007, therefore, the OP is deficient in giving timely supply of electricity to premises of the complainant. It is further stated that the OP is liable to pay to the complainant compensation for each day of default for OP’s failure to meet the Guaranteed Standards of Performance as per regulation 65 of DERC Supply Code, 2007.
3. It is stated that on 11.09.2012, the complainant sent a letter to OP requesting to install the new meter connection immediately and also submitted the copy of the application for new connection along with all required documents.It is stated that complainant informed to the OP that she has newly prepared the office and the electricity is the basic need to make use of her office.It is further stated that complainant further pleaded before the OP that due to non availability of the electricity being essential service in a office, she is suffering huge loss of Rs.1,166/- per day equivalent to current market rate of rent/lease for her office in this locality, therefore, provide the connection immediately. It is further stated that the complainant further informed to the OP that they will be fully responsible for the irreparable losses occurring to her till the new connection is provided. The complainant finally repeated her request to the OP to provide the new electricity connection immediately without further delay and in case of any clarification if any, please inform or SMS to her mobile no.9310170874 or email at
4. It is stated that on 20.03.2013 the OP instead of providing the new connection to the complainant sent a letter along with a cheque amounting Rs.7,500/- as full and final settlement of the case at his own. The OP mentioned no reason in the letter for not providing the connection. It is further stated that on 08.04.2013 the complainant sent the letter to the OP returning the above cheque amounting Rs.7,500/- and repeated her request to provide the electricity connection. It is further stated that the complainant informed the OP that due to delay in providing the connection of electricity being essential service in his office, she is suffering huge and irreparable losses. It is stated that the OP did not take any action till date, therefore, having no option, the complainant called upon the OP to provide new electricity connection immediately and pay the losses being occurred to Rs.35,000/- per month till connection is provided and further pay compensation of Rs.one lac for financial losses and mental agony suffered to her.
5. It is stated that on 16.04.2013 the OP replied to the complainant that in this context, it is informed that her representation has been forwarded to the concerned department for taking needful action in the matter. It is further stated that on 06.05.2013 the OP sent a letter to the complainant informing that her request for new connection was cancelled on account of “meter not installed as applicant wants to close the request”. It is further stated that the matter was being telephonically confirmed on 04.09.2012 and the amount of demand note of Rs.7,500/- has also been refunded as per the process and apply a fresh new connection.
6.  It is stated that complainant contacted the OP’s helpline at 66111912 and made a final request to provide the new connection but the OP flatly refused to provide the connection. It is further stated that the OP is making excuses for not providing new connection and is further giving false statement like “applicant wants to close the request and the matter telephonically confirmed on 04.09.2012”.It is stated that this statement given by the OP is proved to be false axiomatically because the complainant sent a letter on 11.09.2012 reminding to install the new meter connection and pointing the delay in connection and this letter enclosed to annexure II is duly received by both District Manager and Circle Office of the OP whereas the alleged telephonically confirmation is mentioned on 04.09.2012 much before the date of sending the reminder letter i.e 11.09.2012.
7. It is stated that the claim of refund of demand note amounting to Rs.7,500/- by OP is wrong because the complainant returned the cheque vide registered letter dated 08.04.2013 which is duly acknowledged by the OP. It is further stated that the OP acting arrogantly, no care attitude even after complaint in writing is giving false statement to cover the deficiency in service, therefore, it implies that OP is exploiting the complainant to earn money by all means and measures without caring and respecting the law and is adopting unfair and restrictive trade practices in an organized manner.
8. It is stated that the OP denied arbitrarily and deliberately the new electricity connection to the complainant whereas it is the duty of the OP to supply electricity to the premises of the complainant within one month of the application as per section 43(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is stated that the OP has failed to provide connection to the complainant despite knowing that the electricity is the essential service to the complainant’s office. It is further stated that to give supply to the applicant is the prime responsibility of the OP as per the license given to them under the act. It is painful that OP is escaping from its liability of distribution of the electricity to the consumers and is working like a Super King/Owner of the electricity in an organized manner to take unjust enrichment.
9. It is stated that the OP has failed to supply the electricity within the specified time, therefore, is liable to a penalty to Rs.1,000/- for each day of default as per section 43(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is further stated that the complainant, therefore, having no option has filed the present complaint before the Hon’ble District Forum for redressal of her genuine grievance.
10. The complainant is seeking direction to OP to provide new electricity connection of 3 KW of load and category non domestic light  immediately without further delay, complainant be compensated to the tune of Rs.6,30,000/- as actual damages and losses suffered on account of rent of the premises from October 2012 to March 2015, to pay Rs.35,000/- per month from 01.04.2014 till new electricity connection is provided, to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and harassment caused to complainant, to pay exemplary and heavy cost and to pay cost of litigation suitably.
11. OP filed detailed WS and taken preliminary objections that the present complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable in view of the fact no cause of action ever arose in favor of the complainant and against the OP. It is stated that the complaint of the complainant is sheer misuse of process of law and liable to be dismissed as the complainant has not come before this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands and concealed the material facts.
12. It is stated that the consumer fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act would have jurisdiction to entertain only the complaint filed by the consumer of electricity alleging any defect or deficiency in the supply of the electricity. It is further stated that present complaint is not maintainable as the relief claimed does not come under the preview of section 14 CPA. It is stated that the contents of application filed on the ground of maintainability filed on behalf of respondent  may kindly  be treated as part and parcel of this preliminary objection as the same are repeated herein for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition.
13. It is stated that the present complaint was filed by the complainant having no locus inasmuch complainant lacks capacity to discharge the character of ‘complainant’ therefore is not even entitled to file the complaint against the answering respondent, moreover, has failed fulfill the basic essential to claim relief under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 however, the alleged complainant in present scenario is not a consumer to the respondent, hence present complaint is not maintainable.
14. It is stated that the genus of dispute in the present complaint is the grant of fresh electricity connection which was sought in the name of Smt.Lalita Kumari Rohilla, complainant, pursuant to which Demand note was generated amounting Rs.7500/-.It is further stated that the present connection was  sought for the commercial purpose of 5 KW which was also not maintainable before this Hon’ble Forum inasmuch the complainant would be the availing the facility from the respondent for fulfilling his commercial prospective. However, the said issue of maintainability of non domestic connection was challenged before Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP and is subjudice, hence, the, answering respondent reserves its right to respond at later stage subject to the outcome of said SLP.
15. OP has taken preliminary submissions that applicant/complainant Smt. Lalita Kumari Rohilla had applied for a new NL connection vide notification no.2003189687 on dated 09.08.2012 which as per guided norms after payment of DN, the subject case was moved to MMG for meter installation but ‘as per the applicant- she does not want connection’ (remarks of notepad dated 04.09.2012 at 23:37:27) so notification was cancelled on 07.09.2012. It is stated that connection has been installed against CA No.60015762051 on 07.05.2014 after the applicant/complainant had completed the statutory commercial formality required for processing and energizing new commercial connection.
16. On merit all the allegations made in the complaint are denied by OP and reiterated contents of preliminary objection and submissions. It is stated that as per record of OP complainant made request for a new electric connection at premises no.301, 3^rd floor, Bhanot Bhawan, Plot No.B-1/2, Commercial Complex, Azadpur, Delhi-110033 vide notification no.2003189687 but miserably failed to comply the statutory guidelines in as much as and requested to cancel the request for new connection. It is further stated that being a consumer centric approach the subject notification was registered under FSE-less process so demand note was generated  on 21.08.2012 without completion of commercial formalities with regard to file preparation and submission of required documents and after payment of demand note again CA No.60015762051 case was moved to MMG for meter installation .
17. It is stated that as per remarks in the notepad “consumer Lalita Kumari wants to cancel the request” her notification was cancelled  on 07.09.2012, therefore, OP is not liable to pay any compensation on any ground. It is further stated that as per note pad entry dated 07.09.2012  at 16:38:50, the complainant was informed to visit CMG hearing cell with required documents for new connection between 2 to 5 pm viz-a-viz the same was informed by post from  commercial manager, District Model Town, vide letter no.366 dated 16.04.2013 and from HOG, Consumer complaint analysis group, TPDDL Cencare, Keshav Puram vide letter no.364 dated 06.05.2013 to apply afresh for new connection alongwith complete documents.
18. It is stated that complainant had herself requested for cancellation of her new connection consequently every issue pertaining to request no. 2003189687 ceased to exist. It is further stated that complainant had miserably failed to produce any document on record in support of her complaint. It is further stated that complainant herself asked to close her new connection and request was considered and honored by refunding the amount deposited for new commercial connection prior to filing of complaint and subsequent request was proceeded after complainant’s fulfillment of all required commercial formalities and commercial connection of 5KW was installed on 07.05.2014, therefore, there is no deficiency of negligence on the part of OP. It is stated that present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
19. Complainant filed rejoinder and denied all the allegations made in the WS and reiterated contents of complainant. It is stated that the issue of maintainability of non domestic connection is well settled now by the reasoned and speaking order of the Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi in FA 271/2011 decided  on 17.02.2014 wherein it is held “that it is abundantly clear that services may be for any connected  commercial activity, yet it would bewithin the purview of Consumer Protection Act. In the present case, the use of electricity is not intended to generate profit directly or indirectly. Therefore, it could not directly serve any commercial purpose. Hence, the complainant is  a consumer within the meaning of the Act.” It is further stated that thereafter National commission in the order dated 16.12.2014 in RP (C) no.1651/2014, NDPL Vs. R.K Rohilla upheld the decision of the Hon’ble State Commission. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the order dated 23.08.2016 in SLP (C) no.26557/2015 and SLP (C) no.27278/2015 (NDPLVs. R.K Rohilla) also upheld the above order of Hon’le National Commission and dismissed the SLP filed by TPDDL. It is stated that complainant is entitled for all the relief claimed in the complaint.
20. Complainant filed evidence by way of her affidavit and reiterated contents of complainant. Complainant relied on copy of demand note dated 21.08.2012 annexure-I, copy on letter dated 11.09.2012 and postal slip dated 12.09.2012 annexure –II, copy of letter dated 20.03.2013 and photocopy of the cheque annexure-III, copy of letter dated 08.04.2013 and postal delivery report dated 10.04.2013 annexure-V, copy of reply letter dated 16.04.2013 annexure V, copy of letter dated 06.05.2013 annexure –VI and copy of electricity bill dated 20.12.2014 issued by OP annexure VII.
21. OP filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sanket Sharma CSM and reiterated contents of WS.
22. Written arguments filed by complainant as well as by OP.
23. We have heard Sh.  R.K Rohilla Husband of complainant/A.R. and Sh. Harish Purohit AR for OP and perused the record. We have also argument on pending application of OP on maintainability of the complaint. We have also gone through written submissions filed by complainant on the maintainability application.
24. It is admitted case of the parties that complainant applied for new connection on 09.08.2012 for 3 K.W for non domestic light vide requestno.23189687 and same was accepted by OP on 21.08.2012 and Rs.7500/- were deposited in cash. The connection was not installed and again a letter dated 11.09.2012 written to OP. On 20.03.2013 OP instead  of providing a new connection sent a letter with a cheque of Rs.75,00/- as full and final settlement amount. However, complainant returned the said cheque of Rs.7500/-on 08.04.2013 and again repeated the request for providing new connection. On 16.04.2013 OP replied that his representation has been forwarded to concerned department. On 06.05.2013 OP sent a letter that her request for new connection was cancelled on account of meter not installed as applicant wants to close the request and it was confirmed on telephone on 04.09.2012 and amount was refunded. OP mentioned about applying afresh for new connection. The complainant against made a request for new connection. The complainant has disputed the facts with regard to non installation of meter as a cancellation of request for installation of new connection. As per OP the connection was installed on 07.05.2014.
25. The OP vehemently contested the present matter that present complaint is not maintainable as the connection sought is for commercial purposes and fulfilling commercial prospective. The AR for OP referred to judgment of 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.

26. It is not out of place to mention that husband Attorney of complainant Sh. R.K Rohilla is owner of office no. 201 and 203 in the same commercial complex and running business in the name and style of “Care Well Pipes”. This company is in existence since 1997. The dominant purpose for commercial connection is for commercial transactions by the complainant as she has already admitted that she wants to let out the office on rent which was about Rs.35,000/- per month. The complainant has concealded the material facts from the District Commission that her husband Sh. R.K Rohilla earlier was having a commercial connection of 11 K.W then applied for reduction to 8 K.W, thereafter applied for another connection for commercial purposes 2.5 K.W. He also wish to have income of letting out on rent the office no. 208 in the same building. The complainant is also not require commercial connection for earning her livelihood but to earn  profit while letting out the office premises, therefore, the dominant purpose is commercial. The present complaint is squarely covered by the judgment of Shrikant G. Mantri (supra) , therefore, present complaint is not maintainable.
27. Now coming on the merit of the present case the complainant when initially applied for  new connection on 09.08.2012 the same was closed on 04.09.2012 as complainant failed to fulfill and complete the commercial formalities. There is no document filed on record that complainant was not willing to not to close the request. It is  admitted by  complainant that OP returned the Rs.7500/- deposited for new connection. The complainant written letter dated 08.04.2013 wherein again reiterated the request for installation of new connection and sent a cheque of Rs.7500/-. The OP replied vide letter dated 06.05.2013 that the request no. 23189687 was cancelled “applicant wants to close the request” and it was confirmed through telephone no. 9310170874 on 04.09.2012. The complainant has not placed any documentary proof that  this telephone does not  belong to complainant and request was never cancelled. In these  peculiar circumstances we are of considered opinion that there  is no deficiency on the part of OP and complainant failed to establish any harassment on the  part  of OP or unfair trade practice on the part of OP.
28. On the basis of above observation and discussion present complaint is dismissed. No order as to  cost. File be consigned to record  room.
29. 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  28.03.2024.

SANJAY KUMAR                   NIPUR CHANDNA                                      RAJESH

PRESIDENT                                       MEMBER                                         MEMBER