Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 529
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, CJ, PINKI, J
MS. ANURADHA SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LIMITED (TPDDL) – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO.-240/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Mr. Atul Tyagi, Mr. Vinayak Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. Paritosh Singh Rajput
Ownership of utility services must include registration in the consumer's name to qualify for protection under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Definition of consumer - The primary issue addressed was whether the complainant qualifies as a consumer under the Act due to the electricity connection being in the previous allottee's name - The court found that the complainant failed to establish herself as a consumer as the transfer of the electricity connection was not completed. (Paras 11, 17, 48)
(B) Evidence and Burden of Proof - The court emphasized that the burden of proving consumer status lies with the complainant, which was not met in this case. (Paras 6, 30)
Facts of the case:
The complainant, an advocate, asserted her right to consumer status after her chamber was allotted to her, while the electricity supply remained registered under the previous allottee's name, causing her to be charged commercial rates without resolution.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that lack of titled ownership of the electricity connection disqualified the complainant from being deemed a consumer under the Act, ruling that the obligation to transfer the electricity service remained unfulfilled.
Issues: The court addressed whether the electricity connection's registration precludes the complainant from consumer protection status and the implications of non-domestic tariff application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that until the electricity connection is registered in the complainant's name, she cannot claim consumer rights, solidifying that statutory definitions of consumer encompass not just ownership but necessary registration for service claims.
Result: Appeal dismissed, complaint against electricity provider deemed non-maintainable.
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:
“1. By way of this application, the OP-1 has sought dismissal of this complaint primarily on the ground that the Complainant herein is not a consumer. We have heard the arguments of both the parties on the last date of hearing and have gone through the pleadings and dosuments on record.
2. Admittedly, the Complainant who is an Advocate and practising in Tis Hazari Court Complex is the allottee of the Chamber No.298 (Ground Floor), Ground floor, Western Wing, Tis Hazari Court Complex. The said chamber was earlier allotted in the name of Sh. Amrit Rai Gupta (not a party) which was subsequently transferred in the name of the Complainant herein. Ownership of the said chamber was transferred in the name of the Complainant on 15.09.2009by Delhi Bar Association (OP-2 herein). The request letter of Sh. Amrit Rai Gupta, the previous allottee, relinquishing his rights in the said chamber and also for communicating no objection for transfer of the said chamber in the name of the Complainant herein is on record. The receipt of the payment of chamber transfer fee by the Complainant to the Delhi Bar Association is also on record. Subsequently, the allotment of chamber was transferred in the name of the Complainant by OP-2.
3. In the said chamber, the electricity connection was in existence prior to the transfer and the said electricity connection is still continuing in the name of Sh. Amrit Rai Gupta. There is no document on record to suggest that any attempt has been made by the Complainant herein to get the electricity connection transferred in her name after the ownership of the chamber has been transferred in the name of the Complainant herein.
4. The Opposite Party, by way of this application, has primarily raised this issue that as the electricity connection is in the name Sh. Amrit Rai Gupta and not in the name of the Complainant herein, the Complainant herein is not a consumer within the ambit of the provisions of Consumer Protection Act , 2019.There are other grounds that have also been pleaded in the application. However as the ground of the Complainant not being a consumer is at the root of the case, we are first deciding this ground first.”
2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the judgment dated 26.03.2025, whereby it held as under:
“6. We have gone through the judgment referred by Ld. Advocate for the Complainant. In the Hari Chand case (supra) before Hon’ble National Commission, the electricity connection was in the name of the owner of the premises but the consumer dispute was raised by the lease-holder who was using the electricity connection. The lease-holder has taken the premises in question on a lease from its owner for a limited period of 2 years and was also using the electricity connection which was in the name of owner. In Hari Chand case (supra), the beneficiary of the electricity connection, i.e. lease-holder, was using the electricity connection under the authorisation of the actual owner of the property and the electricity connection. But in the case in hand, Sh. Amrit Rai Gupta is no longer the owner/ allottee of the chamber where the electricity connection in question was installed. He has already relinquished his right on the said chamber and the said chamber is now transferred in the name of the Complainant herein. Once the Complainant becomes the owner/ allottee of the chamber, she no longer can claim that she is using the electricity connection in the name of the previous allottee under the authorisation of previous allottee. Further there is no document on record that the previous allottee has authorised the Complainant herein to use the electricity connection which is still in his name.
7. After the transfer of the allotment of the chamber, the electricity connection cannot get the automatically transferred in the name of the Complainant. The Complainant had to take s
