National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited vs Ramesh Kumar Rohilla, on 16 December, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1651 OF 2014 (From the order dated 17.2.2014 in First Appeal No. 271 of 2011 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi) Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited, (formerly North Delhi Power Ltd.) Through its MD/CEO Grid Sub Station Building, Hudson Lines, Kingsway Camp, Delhi 110 009 Petitioner Versus Ramesh Kumar Rohilla, Son of Late Shri Shish Ram Rohilla, 201, 2nd Floor, Bhanot Bhawan, Commercial Complex, Azadpur, Delhi 11 033 Respondent REVISION PETITION NO. 1652 OF 2014 (From the order dated 17.2.2014 in First Appeal No. 272 of 2011 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi) Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited, (formerly North Delhi Power Ltd.) Through its MD/CEO Grid Sub Station Building, Hudson Lines, Kingsway Camp, Delhi 110 009 Petitioner Versus Ramesh Kumar Rohilla, Son of Late Shri Shish Ram Rohilla, 201, 2nd Floor, Bhanot Bhawan, Commercial Complex, Azadpur, Delhi 11 033 Respondent REVISION PETITION NO. 1653 OF 2014 (From the order dated 17.2.2014 in First Appeal No. 273 of 2011 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi) Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited, (formerly North Delhi Power Ltd.) Through its MD/CEO Grid Sub Station Building, Hudson Lines, Kingsway Camp, Delhi 110 009 Petitioner Versus Ramesh Kumar Rohilla, Son of Late Shri Shish Ram Rohilla, 208, 2nd Floor, Bhanot Bhawan, Commercial Complex, Azadpur, Delhi 11 033 Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish Srivastava, Advocate Along with Ms. Ritu Jain, AR of TPDDL For the Respondent : In person PRONOUNCED ON 16th DECEMBER, 2014 O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER These revision petitions arising out of common order of the State Commission are decided by a common order.
2. These revision petitions have been filed by petitioner against order dated 17.02.2014, passed by the State Commission in First Appeal No.271, 272 and 273 of 2011, Ramesh Kumar Rohilla Vs. M/s. North Delhi Power Limited, by which while allowing appeals, order of District Forum, dismissing complaint, as not maintainable, was set aside and matter was remanded back to the District Forum to decide complaints on merits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that complainant-respondent, owner of office space No.208 is the consumer of OP-petitioner having permanent electricity connection (non-domestic light). Complainant filed three complaints before District Forum, claiming different reliefs.
Opposite party appeared and moved application for dismissal of complaint on the ground that complainant does not fall within purview of consumer. Learned District Forum, after hearing both the parties, allowed application and dismissed complaints, as not maintainable. Appeals filed by complainant were allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which these revision petitions have been filed.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent in person finally at admissions stage and perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as electricity connection of complainant falls within purview of commercial connection, learned District Forum rightly allowed application and dismissed the complaints, even then, learned State Commission committed error in allowing the appeals. It was further submitted that as complainant had already approached to the appropriate authority under Indian Electricity Act, complaints were not maintainable, hence revision petitions be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence revision petitions be dismissed.
6. It is not disputed that complainant, owner of the small office space measuring 36 Sq. M. had taken non domestic light connection. The core question to be decided in these revision petitions is whether aforesaid connection falls within purview of the commercial connection or not.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as connection is not for domestic purposes, it falls within purview of commercial connection, hence complaint was not maintainable. In support of his contention he placed reliance on judgment of Honble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1065/2000, Chairman, M.P. Electricity Board & Ors. Vs. Shiv Narayan & Anr. in which there were two categories of tariffs viz. (a) domestic purposes and (b) commercial and non-domestic purposes and in such circumstances, it was held that as consumers connection was not domestic it fell within category of commercial and non-domestic. In the present case, learned counsel for petitioner has not placed any tariff entry before me, which classifies non-domestic connection within purview of commercial connection, and in such circumstances, judgment of Shiv Narayan (supra) does not help to the petitioner and it cannot be inferred that complainants electric connection fall within purview of commercial connection.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in III (2006) CPJ 409 National Commission, Hotel Corporation of India Ltd., Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board and Ors., in which it was held that 11 KV O/H cum U/G feeder for supply of electricity to complainants hotel was held to be for commercial purposes. Facts of aforesaid case are not applicable to the present case as in the case in hand; complainants connection is only for electrifying small office of 36 sq. mtr., which is apparently meant for earning livelihood by running office in the premises.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in FA/84/2009 BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs. M/s. Saraf Project Pvt. Ltd., in which it was observed that Private Limited Company running a Rest-O-Bar in the premises obtained connection for commercial purposes. Facts of aforesaid case are also not applicable to the case in hand as complainant obtained connection only for running small office.
9. Learned State Commission rightly observed that for the purpose of falling within purview of commercial purpose, goods purchased or services hired, should be used in any activity directly intended to generate profit and in the case in hand, use of electricity connection is not to generate profits directly and learned State Commission rightly observed that complainant falls within purview of consumer.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as complainant had already approached two appropriate authorities under Section 42 (5) of Electricity Act, complaints were not maintainable. At this stage, this argument cannot be considered as in application filed before the District Forum, opposite Party has not taken this ground for non-maintainability of the complaint. Opposite party is free to take all these grounds in the written statement, which will be decided by District Forum on merits.
11. I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petitions are liable to be dismissed.
Consequently, revision petitions filed by petitioner are dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.
..Sd/-..J. (K. S. CHAUDHARI) PRESIDING MEMBER SB/4