DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 978/2019
D.No.__________________ Dated: _________________<
IN THE MATTER OF:
PURAN CHAND S/o LATE Sh. ROHTAS
R/o WZ-21, SHAKUR PUR VILLAGE,
DELHI-110034. … COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD.
NEAR GOPAL MANDIR, PITAM PURA,
DELHI-110034. … OPPOSITE PARTY
CORAM: SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 17.12.2019
Date of Decision: 17.01.2020
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed original bill dated 07.01.2020 for an amount of Rs.7,770/- which is in the name of Ms. Shanti, the owner of the property. During the course of arguments on admission, AR on behalf of OP appeared in other case and accepted notice of the case and copy of the complaint alongwith all documents supplied to AR on behalf of OP. AR on behalf of OP submitted that Ms. Shanti is the registered consumer of an NDLT
CC No.978/2019 Page 1 of 3
Tariff Category of 2 KW sanction load. SLD charges is levied on Ms. Shanti and the present case is filed by Sh. Puran Chand stated to be a tenant and no rent agreement is filed. In the complaint, the complainant has further alleged that he has received illegal bill of Rs.680/- of 47 units for the month of May-2018, of Rs.9,560/- of the month of June-2018 of 59 units and of Rs.9,550/- for the month of July-2018 of consuming 55 units on the load of 1 KW and for the month of August-2018 he received bill of Rs.990/- of 55 units on the load of 2 KW. The complainant has further submitted that he has been harassed by OP and has been requesting OP to resolve the grievances and failure on the part of OP the complainant has filed the complaint.
2. AR on behalf of OP further submitted that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the NDLT Tariff Category connection. The complainant has not disputed the averments made by AR on behalf of OP.
3. The first and foremost question which arises for consideration is “whether or not the complainant is a consumer” as envisaged u/s 2 (1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986 and “whether the complaint is maintainable”.
4. In order to find answer to this question it would be useful to consider Sec. 2 (1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986, which defines the term “Consumer”. On reading the said Section it is clear that Consumer is a person who buys goods for consideration or hires or avails of
CC No.978/2019 Page 2 of 3
service for consideration. There is an exception to the explanation by providing that if the person hires or avails service for consideration for commercial purpose, he would not be termed as “Consumer”.
5. Referring to the admitted facts of the present case the complainant is a tenant in respect of shop situated on ground floor and consuming electricity vide C.A. No. 60009462643 which is in the name of Ms. Shanti and is a commercial connection and thus the complainant is using the electricity for commercial purposes.
6. We are not convinced with the submissions of the complainant. It clearly shows that the complainant is dealing in commercial activities. Thus, the complainant is not covered under the definition of the word “Consumer”. Thus, the complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed.
7. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of The Consumer Protection Regulations-2005. Therefore, file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 17th day of January, 2020.
BARIQ AHMAD USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
UPLOADED BY : SATYENDRA JEET
CC No.978/2019 Page 3 of 3
