Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 2523
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, CJ, PINKI, J
MR. RAMESH KUMAR ROHILLA – Appellant
Versus
M/S TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LIMITED – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO.399/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR. RAMESH KUMAR ROHILLA
For the Respondents: Mr. Partitosh Singh Rajput
A person purchasing goods for commercial purposes does not qualify as a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, limiting consumer protections to personal use for livelihood.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(d) - Electricity Act, 2003 - Complainant sought redress for excessive charges related to electricity load enhancement but was dismissed by the District Commission for lack of jurisdiction, citing the complainant is not a 'consumer' due to commercial use. The Commission interpreted the 'consumer' definition limiting it to personal use and self-employment, distinguishing commercial transactions from personal consumption. Case precedent reiterates necessity for a 'consumer' to primarily use purchased goods for personal livelihood. (Paras 31, 41, 42)
Facts of the case:
Complainant, owner of a business, made a request to enhance the electricity load from 3KW to 11KW and disputed the demand note issued by the provider for Rs. 23,000/- which they argued was excessive. The complaint was dismissed on grounds of maintainability due to the commercial status of the complainant.
Findings of Court:
The District Commission ruled that the demand note for Rs. 23,000/- was justified per DERC Supply Regulations and there was no evidence of deficiency in service.
Issues: The main issue addressed involved whether the complainant qualifies as a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, given the nature of electricity use primarily for business operations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the complainant's use of electricity was predominantly for commercial purposes, thus excluding him from consumer protections as envisioned by the Act. Past judgments affirmed that self-employment usage must not intertwine with commercial transactions to qualify as ‘consumer’.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:
“1. In brief the facts of the present case are that plaintiff is the owner of office space no. 201, 2nd floor, Bhanot Bhawan, Plot No. B-1/2, Commercial Complex Azadpur, Delhi-110033, is the consumer having NDPL's permanent electricity meter connection K No.36104011533F in electricity district of Model Town, Delhi.
2. It is stated that on 24.08.2009 the plaintiff booked on NDPL's customer care telephone no. 66111912 his request for load enhancement and category change of connection permanent meter for electricity use non domestic light, load from 3 to 11 KW and meter from single phase to three phase in District Model Town and NDPL accepted the details as required and issued request no. 0910799758. It is further stated that on 26.08.2009 NDPL issued a consumer demand note no.316338 of Rs.23,000/- showing break up of Rs. 12,000/- as consumption deposit for permanent connection and Rs.11,000/-as service line cum development charges for three phase.
3. It is stated that on 03.09.2009 the plaintiff tried to deposit the amount by cheque at the counter of Naniwala Bagh, Azadpur, District Model Town but NDPL did not accept the same even after the plaintiff has got clarified before deposit by calling customer care center for NDPL and they have confirmed that the cheque is acceptable. It is further stated that plaintiff was forced to waste his half day in clarifications and requesting the cheque payment but NDPL did not accept the cheque payment. It is further stated that on 04.09.2009 the plaintiff email to NDPL requesting to clarify why the payment from existing customer is not being accepted by cheque.
4. It is stated that plaintiff further requested to clarify the break up of amount charged in the debit mode and further requested to clarify that why NDPL has not adjusted the earlier service line cum development charges of Rs.3000/- paid like done in case of consumption deposit. It is further stated that plaintiff said that the demand note has been prepared with a excess amount of either Rs.3000/ of Rs.4000/- because the load enhancement of 8KW (11KW- 3KW) as per the DERC rules is either the 7000 or Rs.8000/-as the difference in the charges between Rs.11,000/- and Rs.3000/-for 11kw and 3kw. It is stated that plaintiff deposited the amount by ICICI Bank demand draft no.150156 of Rs.23,000/- dated 04.09.2009 with protest because NDPL said that the debit note is correct and as per the DERC rules.
5. It is stated that the plaintiff further submitted through emails to NDPL that service line cum development charges (SLD) as per para 30 table 4 of DERC Supply Code and Performance Standards Regulations, 2007 are Rs.7,000.00 for the sanctioned load of 5 to 10kw where as per request of plaintiff, the load enhancement is just 8ks so the demand note for load enhance should be Rs.7,000/- +Rs.12,000/- as consumption charges thus total to be Rs.19,000/-instead of Rs.23,000/- as mentioned in demand note and no action taken by NDPL. It is further stated that in absence of no response from NDPL after the submission of the above email letter, the plaintiff made a complaint on 2nd feb, 2010 to CGRF for NDPL (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum constituted under section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 ), Sub Station Building, Police Colony, Model Town-II, New Delhi- 11009 & CEO, NDPL with a copy to the Secretary, Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC), Viniyamak Bhavan, C-Block, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi- 110017 requesting the redressal of his genuine grievance.
6. It is stated that on 12.03.2010 the plaintiff got a letter no.NDPL/COAG/187 dated 24th feb, 2010 from NDPL where in NDPL replied un responsibly with out any explanation of the complaint. It is further stated that the plaintiff submitted to CGRF another letter ref. no. NDPL/RKR-CGRF-09-10/14 dated 19.03.2010 requesting for early action and submitted the copies of the current correspondence with N
