ORDER

22.12.2023

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. In brief facts of the present case are that complainant is the consumer  of electric connection no.CA no.60012231472. It is stated that complainant has been using the electric connection for the purpose it was sanctioned and has never committed any breach of agreement or violated any rule/regulation at any point of time or misused the electric supply in any manner. It is further stated that complainant is good pay master and paying regular consumption bills as and when received by complainant.
2. It is stated that OP is continuously sending wrong and huge bills while the current demand of the complainant is very few than payable amount. The sanctioned load is 5kw while the MDI is very low. The complainant visited the office of OP and given representation than he was assured to look into the matter and rectify the bill but no information given to  the complainant regarding huge amount bills. The complainant was informed that in order to avoid disconnection he has to pay the huge amount bill. It is further stated that yesterday officials of OP came for disconnection of the electric supply but  complainant requested not to disconnect till Friday or he will deposit  the amount or will apply for stay order from court/forum as he is under threat of disconnection.
3. It is stated that the aforesaid act of OP is illegal, unwarranted, improper and arbitrary and against principle of natural justice and amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The complainant is not liable to pay the amount which is beyond the limitation. Hence, present complaint filed seeking the direction that bill dated 26.09.2014 may be quashed, not to disconnect electric supply till the disposal of the case, to pay suitable compensation for physical and mental harassment with litigation charges or any other relief which this forum feels deem and proper.
4. OP filed detailed reply and taken preliminary objection that present complaint is not maintainable as no cause of action ever arose in favour of complainant. It is stated that complainant is neither the registered consumer nor having any relation with OP and he is a stranger as the CA No.60012231472 stands in the name of Sh. Sudesh Mitar. OP referred to the judgment of Hari Prasad Vs. MU.H.B.V.N.L Panchkula & Ors I (2010) CPJ 104 (NC). It is further stated that present complaint is sheer misuse of process of law and this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The OP referred to the K.Sagar MD Kiran Chit Fund Musheerabad Vs. A Bal Reddy & Ors. Civil Appeal No.1498/2005 decided on 11.06.2008 and Arun Aggarwal Vs. Nagreeka Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (2002) 10 SCC 101.
5. On merit all the allegations are denied. It is stated that CA no.60012231472 is having sanctioned load of 5kw and installed in favour of Sh. Sudesh Mitar installed at House No.10 BLK-B, Sector-1, Avantika Market, Delhi-85 and complainant had failed to establish nexus with the subject connection as no documentary proof filed on record.
6. It is stated that the consumer has settled one DAE bill amounting to Rs.1,01,117/- for a sum of Rs.71,000/- before PLA on 20.09.2014 and till amount to be paid in three equal monthly installments on or before 30 of each month commencing from September 2004. The consumer paid Rs.20,000/- on 04.10.2004, Rs.25,670/- on 22.11.2004 and third installment of Rs.25,330/- on 30.11.2014 through normal bill. There are three irregularities found in making the payment of settlement amount. Firstly, consumer has not paid the settlement amount in three equal installment, secondly, consumer failed to make the payment in time and thirdly, consumer has not paid the settlement amount in EAC account rather he paid the bills through normal bills consequently, the amount was adjusted against the energy charges.
7. It is stated that subsequently on the representation of consumer the said amount was transferred in EAC account to give the effect  to settlement and thus Rs.71,000/- was debited in normal bill on 05.10.2008. It is further stated that consequently the said amount was started reflecting as a due against the energy charges and consumer erroneously assumed that OP is claiming DAE bill, however, OP has been asking dues arising out energy charges because of debit made of Rs.71,000/-. It is further stated that consumer wants to take benefit of this payment against two different bills i.e DAE bill and energy charges. The DAE bill case has already been closed. Therefore, the demand of Rs.71,000/- is justified and recoverable.
8. It is stated that complainant has  earlier approached the present Hon’ble Forum in complaint case no.1559 of 2008 against the same electricity connection which was dismissed after considering the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UP Electricity Corporation Vs. Anis Ahmend. The complainant did not take any initiation to restore the said complaint case and filed the present case, therefore, present case is not maintainable. It is further stated that the consumer had not paid the energy consumption charges of Rs.1,35,640/- under contractual obligation, therefore, the impugned bill is legal, lawful and payable by the consumer. It is stated that there is no deficiency on the part of OP. The complainant is guilty of supresso facto therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
9. Complainant filed rejoinder to the WS and denied all the allegations made therein and reiterated contents of the complaint. It is stated that complainant has purchased the premises and using the electric connection for his personal use for its sanctioned purpose only. The complainant is the consumer of the CA No.60012231472. It is stated that second complaint is not barred. It is stated that the wrong illegal and huge bill may be quashed.
10. Complainant filed evidence by way of his affidavit and reiterated contents of the complaint. Complainant relied on photocopy of property documents Ex.CW1/1 and copy of I card Ex.CW1/2, copy of bill dated 26.09.2014  Ex.CW1/3 and disconnection notice under section 56 (1) Ex.CW1/4.
11. OP filed evidence by way of affidavit of Santosh Choubey CSM. In the affidavit contents of written statement reiterated. The OP relied on copy of inspection report, Show Cause notice and DAE bill Ex.DW1/1, copy of PLA order dated 20.09.2004 Ex.DW1/2, copy of representation of consumer Ex.DW1/3 and copy of statement of account Ex.DW1/4.
12. Written arguments filed on behalf of complainant as well as OP.
13. We have heard Sh. M.K Gill counsel for complainant and Sh. Harish Purohit AR for OP and perused the record.
14. The complainant Ram Bharose alleged that he is consumer of CA No.60012231472 installed at House no.1034 B-Block, Sector 1, Avantika Market, Rohini, Delhi-85. The copy of impugned bill dated 26.09.2014 is in the name of Mr. Subhash Mitar. The electricity contract and connection is not in the name of complainant Ram Bharose and this fact has not been disclosed in the complaint. The OP had taken objection on the locus standi of the complainant then photocopy of property documents filed on record according to which complainant purchased the premises from Subhash Mitar on 12.04.2014, however, the original allottee from DDA was Subhash Mitar. The complainant did not take any steps to get transfer the electricity connection in his name or a new connection in his name. The complainant also concealded the vital fact that a DAE case was booked against the above said connection which was settled before PLA for Rs.71,000/- against the original bill amount of Rs.1,01,117/-. The copy of order filed by OP, however, in the rejoinder the complainant remained silent on this DAE bill and PLA order. The complainant is also not disputed the fact that Rs.71,000/- settlement amount of DAE case deposited in three installments which were entered by OP as energy charges and later on when it was detected then it was adjusted towards DAE case and same was closed. The complainant has not filed on record any paid bill document for the said period. The complainant cannot take advantage of the fact that Rs.71,000/- paid by him against DAE case if entered wrongly due to complainant’s error against regular energy consumption charges. The complainant/consumer is liable to pay the regular energy consumption charges as per statutory contract between the parties. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant due to reasons best known to him after purchasing the property did not take any step to transfer the electricity connection is in his name, therefore, he has no locus standi to challenge the impugned bill.

1. It is admitted by complainant that the electricity connection has been used for the purpose for which it has been sanctioned as per impugned bill the electricity connection has been sanctioned in the category of NDLT i.e for commercial purposes. The complainant did not mentioned a single fact with regard to commercial activities carried out at the premises, however, as per document filed by OP it is a Halwai Sweet Shop. The law is well settled by 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.

15. Now applying in the present case the above discussed principle of law, the present complaint is not maintainable being pertained to commercial electricity connection used for commercial purposes.
16. On the basis of above observation and discussion present complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. File be consigned to record room.
17. 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  22.12.2023.

    SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA                       RAJESH

       PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                               MEMBER