ORDER

09.02.2024

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. In brief facts of the present case are that complainant is the user/beneficiary of the connection CA No.60003373671 with sanctioned load 3 KW. It is further stated that complainant is paying regularly bill or and when sent by OP. Last paid bill Rs.2,000/- on 13.12.2013. It is stated that OP has sent a bill dated 10.01.2014 for Rs.2,20,500/- in which current demand is only Rs.2202/-  while arrears of Rs.97,270/- and LPSC is Rs.1,21,108.98/- which is wrong and illegal. It is further stated that complainant approached office  of OP there he was told this is dues transfer case and complainant need to deposit otherwise connection will be disconnected.
2. It is stated that complainant is under threat of disconnection without any fault and dues does not pertain to complainant and his premises. It is stated that act and omission of the OP is adamant and illegal without giving any notice or opportunity. The complainant is seeking the direction to quash the huge wrong bill with entire LPSC, not to disconnect supply till the disposal of this case, pay compensation for physical and mental harassment and Hon’ble Forum may pass any further orders in favor of complainant.
3. OP filed detailed WS and taken preliminary objection that present complaint  is not maintainable in view of the fact that no cause of action ever arose in favor of complainant and against OP. It is further stated that complainant is not a registered consumer and electricity connection CA No.60003373671 stands in the name of Sh. Krishan Kumar who is the registered consumer of the electricity connection. It is stated that the present complaint is sheer misuse of process of law and this Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. It is stated that present complaint is liable to be dismissed as per section 14 of CP Act. The OP referred to the judgment of Hari Prasad Vs. MU.H.B.V.N.L Panchkula & ors. I (2010) CPJ 104 (NC), K Sagar MD Kiran Chit Fund Mushirabad Vs. A. Bal Reddy & Anr. CA No.1498/2005 decided on 11.06.2008 and Arun Aggarwal Vs. Nagreeka Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (2002) 10 SCC 101 (SC).
4. On merit all the allegations are denied and contents of preliminary objections reiterated. It is stated that CA No.60003373671 with sanctioned load of 3 KW was installed in favor of Sh. Krishan Kumar at House No.3369, Block WZ, landmark Mahinder Park, Shakur Basti, Delhi-110034. It is further stated that complainant failed to establish nexus with the subject connection and the premises by filing documentary proof.
5. It is stated that complainant has earlier filed a complaint before this Hon’ble Forum bearing no.1137/2008 against the same electricity connection alleging cause of action of misuse and the complaint was dismissed on account of non-presence of complainant on 06.05.2009. It is further stated that complainant has not taken any steps to restore the complaint within stipulated time frame and consequently present complaint filed and these facts have been concealded and complainant mislead the Hon’ble Forum.
6. It is stated that in the earlier complaint complainant had alleged the amount which was the result of misuse of electricity connection thereafter the remaining impugned amount was transferred in NTA which is payable by the complainant. The OP is entitled to recover the same. The complainant earlier granted interim stay/protection and now in this complaint again granted interim protection. It is stated that the disputes pertaining to theft and misuse cannot be entertain before this Hon’ble Forum. The OP has referred the case of UP Power Corporation Vs Anees Ahmad (Supreme Court). It is stated that consumer had not paid the energy consumption charges of Rs.2,20,500/- towards contractual obligation to pay to the OP. It is stated that consumer enjoyed and used the electricity and the dues are legal and lawful against the consumer. It is stated that present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
7. Complainant filed rejoinder and denied all the allegations made in the WS and reiterated contents of the complaint. It is stated that complainant is the user and beneficiary of the electricity connection and paying regularly the bills which were accepted by OP. It is stated that cause of action has arisen in favor of complainant as dues transferred illegally. It is stated that OP is guilty of unfair trade practice. It is stated that complainant is entitled to all reliefs claimed in the complaint.
8. Evidence filed by complainant by way of his affidavit and reiterated contents of the complaint.
9. Evidence filed by OP by way of affidavit of Ms. Sonia Singh Customer Service Manager. In the affidavit contents of WS reiterated. OP relied on copy of notice dated 15.06.1976 Ex.D1, copy of meter booked showing site inspection dated 07.10.2003 Ex.D2 and copy of statement of accounts Ex.D3.
10. Written arguments filed on behalf of OP. As per record no written arguments filed by complainant.
11. We have heard Sh. Harish Purohit AR for OP. Sh. M.K Gill counsel for complainant did not wish to address oral arguments. We have also perused the record.
12. The complainant filed impugned electricity bill dated 10.01.2014 of CA No.60003373671 as per this electricity bill registered consumer is Sh. Krishan Kumar. The tariff category of the electricity connection is NDLT. The complainant also filed notice under section 56 (1) of the Electricity Act 2003 dated 10.01.2014. The complainant filed photocopy of I card of All India Senior Citizens Federation North Zone Gurgaon. The complainant has not filed any documentary proof to establish his relation with the premises where electricity connection has been installed and with the electricity connection provided at the premises. The complainant alleged that he has been paying regular electricity bills, however, no such bill filed on record. The complainant also concealded the fact that earlier he had filed complaint case bearing no.1137/2008 which was dismissed in default on 06.05.2009 challenging the misuse charges on the electricity connection. These facts clearly establish that complainant is not the registered consumer and having no statutory contract with the OP for supply of electricity. Therefore, he has no locus standi to file the present complaint case. It is pertinent to mention here that complainant also guilty of concealment and suppression of true and correct facts from the Hon’ble Forum.
13. The AR for OP referred to the judgment of UP Power Corporation Ltd & Ors. VS. Anees Ahmad (Supreme Court) decided on 01.07.2013. The Hon’ble Supreme court held as under:

1. In case of inconsistency between the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act,1986, the provisions of Consumer Protection Act will prevail, but ipso facto it will not vest the Consumer Forum with the power to redress any dispute with regard to the matters which do not come within the meaning of service as defined under Section 2(1)(o) or complaintas defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. A complainant against the assessment made by assessing officer under Section 126 or against the offences committed under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum.
3. The Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs parallel for giving redressal to any person, who falls within the meaning of “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or the Central Government or the State Government or association of consumers but it is limited to the dispute relating to “unfair trade practice” or a “restrictive trade practice adopted by the service provided; or if the consumer suffers from deficiency in service; or hazardous service; or the service provider has charged a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law.

14. Now applying the principal of law in the present facts and circumstances of the case the impugned electricity bill pertains to misuse charges and this commission does not vest the powers to redress any dispute with regard to misuse charges, therefore, present complaint is not maintainable.
15. It is admitted case of complainant that the electricity connection pertains to tariff category of NDLT non-domestic. The law is well settled in the case of Shrikant G. Mantri Vs Punjab National Bank in civil appeal no.11397 of 2016 dated 22.02.2022 by Hon’ble Supreme Court and the principle of law also laid down as under:

32. The purpose of the said Act has been succinctly described by this Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G Industrial Institute, 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 Laxmi Engineering Works (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 works  on 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 “for  a 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 question  of whether it is for a commercial purpose. It has to be seen whether the dominant intention or dominant purpose for the transaction was to  facilitate some kind of profit generation for  the 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 their  beneficiary, 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.

16. Now applying the principle of law in the present facts and circumstances of the case the electricity connection is NDLT i.e for commercial purposes and it is not the case of the complainant that he is earning his livelihood through its electricity connection means self employed. Hence, present complaint case is not maintainable before this Commission.

17. On the basis of above observation and discussion, the present complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. File be consigned to record room.
18. 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  09.02.2024.

SANJAY KUMAR                     NIPUR CHANDNA                       RAJESH

       PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                                MEMBER