Property Owner Using Electricity Connection In Previous Owner's Name Not A ‘Consumer’ Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission - 2025-07-26

Property Owner Not a 'Consumer' for Electricity Connection in Previous Owner's Name: Delhi State Commission Upholds Dismissal

New Delhi: The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in a significant ruling, has held that an individual who owns and occupies a property cannot be considered a ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, if the electricity connection remains in the name of the previous owner. The Commission emphasized the necessity of a direct 'privity of contract' with the service provider.

The bench, comprising Hon’ble Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Hon’ble Pinki (Member, Judicial) , dismissed an appeal filed by advocate Anuradha Sharma, upholding the District Commission's order that she lacked the locus standi to file a complaint against Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited (TPDDL).

---

Background of the Case

The appellant, Ms. Anuradha Sharma, an advocate, is the allottee of a chamber in Tis Hazari Court Complex since September 15, 2009. The chamber was transferred to her from the previous allottee, Sh. Amrit Rai Gupta, with the approval of the Delhi Bar Association. However, the electricity connection for the chamber, provided by TPDDL, remained registered in Mr. Gupta's name.

A dispute arose when TPDDL issued a bill for ₹21,390 based on commercial tariff rates and subsequently disconnected the electricity supply for non-payment. Ms. Sharma filed a consumer complaint, arguing that as a lawyer's chamber, the electricity should be billed at domestic rates, not commercial ones. She contended that despite using the chamber for 16 years and paying bills, TPDDL was overcharging her.

The District Commission dismissed her complaint on the preliminary ground that since the electricity connection was not in her name, she did not qualify as a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act. Ms. Sharma then appealed this decision to the State Commission.

Arguments from Both Sides

Appellant's Arguments (Ms. Anuradha Sharma):

* The appellant argued that the definition of 'consumer' under the 2019 Act is wide and includes a 'beneficiary' of services.

* She claimed that since the chamber was transferred to her with all amenities, and the previous owner had relinquished all rights, she was the de facto beneficiary of the electricity service and was paying for it.

* She cited the National Commission's judgment in Hari Chand vs. Haryana Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. , where a tenant was held to be a consumer for a connection in the landlord's name.

Respondent's Arguments (TPDDL):

* TPDDL contended that there was no 'privity of contract' between them and Ms. Sharma, as the registered consumer was still Mr. Amrit Rai Gupta.

* They argued that Ms. Sharma had not taken any steps in 16 years to transfer the connection to her name.

* The core issue of tariff classification (domestic vs. commercial) falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC), not the Consumer Forum.

* The billing was done correctly as per the 'Non-Domestic-Lawyer Chamber' (NDLT-LC) category determined by DERC, with a subsidy from the Delhi Government making the effective payable amount equivalent to domestic rates.

Commission's Analysis and Ruling

The State Commission meticulously analyzed the definition of 'consumer' and the precedent cited by the appellant. It distinguished the Hari Chand case, noting:

“...in the case in hand, Sh. Amrit Rai Gupta is no longer the owner/ allottee of the chamber... 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 authorized the complainant/appellant herein to use the electricity connection which is still in his name.”

The Commission affirmed the District Commission's finding that the appellant could not be considered a beneficiary in this context because the original registered consumer had relinquished all rights to the property itself, unlike a landlord-tenant relationship where the owner retains a vested interest.

The bench concluded:

“Admittedly, she is not a Registered Consumer. Once she is not a Registered Consumer, the agreement between the Registered Consumer and the electricity supply company i.e. respondent no.1 has not been executed by the appellant. Therefore, there is no privity of contract between the appellant and respondent no.1. Since appellant is not a Registered Consumer, she has no locus standi to file the complaint.”

Furthermore, the Commission agreed with TPDDL that disputes over tariff determination are outside the purview of consumer forums, as this power is vested with the DERC under the Electricity Act, 2003.

Final Decision

Finding no reason to interfere with the District Commission's order dated March 26, 2025, the State Commission dismissed the appeal. The ruling clarifies that for a user of an electricity service to be recognized as a 'consumer', there must be a formal relationship with the service provider, typically established by having the connection registered in their name. Mere ownership and use of a property are insufficient to establish this status under the Consumer Protection Act.