Anuradha Sharma vs Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited on 17 July, 2025
FA/240/2025 D.O.D.:17.07.2025
ANURADHA SHARMA VS TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION
LTD. ORS
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 15.05.2025
Date of Hearing: 19.06.2025
Date of Decision: 17.07.2025
FIRST APPEAL NO.-240/2025
IN THE MATTER OF
MS. ANURADHA SHARMA,
CHAMBER NO. 298, WESTERN WING,
TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI-110054
...APPELLANT
(Through : Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Mr. Atul Tyagi &
Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Advocates
Mob:-9810194858 &
Email: advrajeev.legal@gmail.com)
VERSUS
1. TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LIMITED (TPDDL)
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
REGISTERED OFFICE: NDPL HOUSE,
HUDSON LINES, KINGSWAY CAMP,
DELHI-110009
2. PRESIDENT,
DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION
TIS HAZARI COURT,
DELHI-110054
(PERFORMA PARTY - NO RELIEF SOUGHT FROM
RESPONDENT NO. 02)
...RESPONDENTS
(Through : Mr. Paritosh Singh Rajput, Advocate
Mob.9810135474 &
Email: adv.psrajput@gmail.com)
DISMISSED Page 1 of 26
FA/240/2025 D.O.D.:17.07.2025
ANURADHA SHARMA VS TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION
LTD. ORS
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Paritosh Singh Rajput, Counsel for the respondent
no.1. (Mob: 9810135474, Email: adv.psrajput@gmail.com)
alongwith Mr. Harish Purohit, AR of the respondent no.1.
None for respondent no. 2.
PER : HON'BLE PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
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.
FA/240/2025 D.O.D.:17.07.2025 ANURADHA SHARMA VS TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. ORS
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 FA/240/2025 D.O.D.:17.07.2025 ANURADHA SHARMA VS TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. ORS 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 steps to get the electricity connection transferred in her name. Further as the Complainant is not using the chamber on behalf of Sh. Amrit Rai Gupta after he relinquished his rights on the chamber, Complainant cannot be stated to be the beneficiary of the electricity connection in the name of Sh. Amrit Rai Gupta.
8. As the facts in the case in Hari Chand case (supra) are different from the facts in the case before hand, the Complainant would not get the benefit of the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in Hari Chand case (supra).
9. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that as the ownership of the chamber has already been transferred in the name of the Complainant, in absence of the subsequent transfer of electricity connection in the name of the Complainant, the Complainant cannot be considered a consumer as neither the electricity connection is in the name of the Complainant/ owner nor the Complainant is a beneficiary of the electricity connection as the electricity connection is in the name of Sh. Amrit Rai Gupta.
10. Therefore, we find force in the arguments of the OP-1 and accordingly hold that the Complainant herein is not a consumer within the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. As we have decided the primary objection in this application in favour of the OP-1, we are not considering other grounds in the application.
11. Hence, for the primary ground that the Complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, we allow this application.
CC/359/2024 FA/240/2025 D.O.D.:17.07.2025
ANURADHA SHARMA VS TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. ORS
12. In view of the fact that MA/206/2024 has been allowed, the this complaint is dismissed on the sole ground that the Complainant herein is not a consumer within the meaning of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act,2019. However in the interest of justice, we permit the Complainant to take appropriate steps and also to move appropriate forum for redressal of her grievance in accordance with the law, if so advised.
13. We have already granted interim relief to the Complainant on 09.09.2024which is still continuing till date. In view of the order in MA/206/2024, this application becomes infructuous. However, in the interest of justice, we also direct that the interim relief shall continue in operation for a period of six weeks from today during which the Complainant shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law."
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Appellant/Complainant has preferred the present appeal on the following grounds:-
"3. That the Ld. District Forum, without application of mind of the provision of law dismissed the complaint, the order passed by the Ld. District Forum is bad in law and is liable to be to be set aside.
I. That the Appellant is an advocate, enrolled since 1999 and having the Ground Floor, chamber no. 298, Western Wing, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi-54, allotted by respondent no. 2. Copy of bar ID is annexed herewith and marked Annexure A-2.
II. That Respondent no. 1 is an Electricity provider in North Delhi and provided the electricity connection no. 60002054942 at ground Floor, Chamber no. 298, Western Wing, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi-54 in the name of Sh. Amrit Rai, to whom earlier chamber was allotted and Mr. Amrit Rai surrender his allotment in favour of the Appellant, thereafter Respondent no. 2 allotted to the Appellant. Copy of Allotment and transfer Application given by Mr. Amrit Rai is Annexed FA/240/2025 D.O.D.:17.07.2025 ANURADHA SHARMA VS TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. ORS herewith and marked Annexure A-3. Being its office of the Advocate, the Appellant is liable to pay the electricity charges at the rate of domestic rates. However, inspite of repeated request and various order of the Hon'ble High Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court, National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission as well as instruction issued by the respondent no. 2 time to time, even number of time challenge the demand of respondent no. 1 by respondent no. 2, respondent no. 1 intentionally issued the electricity bills on the basis of commercial charges and harassing the members of the respondent no. 2.
III. The Appellant has cases in various courts at Delhi, leading to minimal usage of the Chamber at Tis Hazari. Despite the limited use, Respondent no.1 has been issuing the bills and charging commercial rates for electricity consumption, which is most of time nil or less than 50 Units in the months, which comes under the category of free electricity by the Govt. of NCT Delhi.
IV. The chamber of the Appellant is utilized solely for professional legal activities, which are non-commercial in nature and do not fall under the definition of a commercial establishment.
V. That the Appellant, on several occasions, contacted Respondent No. 1 to issue the bills as per domestic connection, so that payment can be made, but respondent no.1 refused to issue any correct bill. No month-wise bills have been issued. The Appellant asked for the break of the charge's month wise, but no readings have been provided, and every time add the charges in the previous bills and increase the outstanding. It is submitted that if every bill raised separately on domestic rates, the bill will be of NIL as Appellant never consumes 200 free units. But in spite of the direction of the Hon'ble Court and respondent no. 2, Respondent no. 1 issuing the bills at the rate of commercials. Copy of letter issued to respondent no. 1 is annexed herewith and marked Annexure A-4 & A-5.
VI. That on 18th August 2024, when the Appellant visited her chamber along with a client, she found that there is no electricity and then come to know that Respondent No. 1 had FA/240/2025 D.O.D.:17.07.2025 ANURADHA SHARMA VS TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. ORS disconnected the electricity supply for non-payment of Rs. ₹21,390/-, it is submitted that respondent no.1 never issued the bills for the correct amount and charged the electricity on the basis of commercial rates instead of domestic. The Appellant number of time made the payment on an ad hoc basis and on the assurance that respondent no. 1 will issue corrects bill, but nothing has been done by the respondent no. 1. The bill details are as follows:
- Bill No.: 017001991655
- Bill Date: 06.08.2024
- Due Date: 24.08.2024
- Total Amount Payable: ₹21,390/-
Copy of bill dated 06.08.2024 is annexed herewith and marked Annexure A-6.
VII. That action of respondent no.1 not issuing the correct bill and charging the amount on the basis of commercial changes is completely illegal. The demand and disconnection itself are illegal and bad in law. This incident not only caused significant harassment to the Appellant but also harmed her reputation in front of her client, reflecting a complete disregard by Respondent No. 1 for the professional responsibilities and rights of the Appellant. VIII. That Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited (TPDDL) (Hereinafter referred to as the "Respondent"), has arbitrarily and unjustly categorized the electricity usage of the Appellant under commercial rates, which is in violation of established legal principles governing the classification of professional legal chambers. The disconnection of the electricity at Chamber no. 298 (Ground Floor), Western Wing, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. of the Appellant is completely illegal and respondent no. 1 be directed to immediately restore the electricity connection and issue the bills of domestic rates and provide the month wise reading and bill. IX. The Appellant asserts that the Respondent's classification of the chamber as a commercial establishment is contrary to the principles laid down by various judicial pronouncements, including those of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The legal profession is recognized as a non-commercial activity FA/240/2025 D.O.D.:17.07.2025 ANURADHA SHARMA VS TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. ORS and does not constitute a trade or business. Therefore, the electricity consumption for a legal chamber should be charged under residential rates.
XI. That the Respondent has failed to adhere to the principles and guidelines established by these judicial pronouncements, thereby causing undue hardship and financial burden on the Appellant by charging commercial rates for electricity consumption and illegally disconnected the Electricity.
XII. That Appellant filed the consumer complaint, the respondent no. 1 also filed the reply to the complaint as well as application and raised the preliminary objection of the maintainability of the complainant on the ground that Complainant is not the consumer. The Appellant also filed a reply to the application. The copy of the Complaint filed by the Appellant, reply to complaint filed by the respondent no. 1, copy of the Application led by the respondent no. 1 and reply filed by the Appellant is annexed herewith and marked Annexures A-7, A-8, A-9, A-10.
XIII. That the learned District commission vide order dated 09.09.2024 directed respondent no. 1 to restore the electricity connection within the two days from receipt of the payment of Rs. 10,000/. The appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000 on the 12.09.2024, however the electricity was not restored till 19.09.2024, thereafter appellant filed the application under Section 72 of the consumer protection act 19 for non-compliance of the order dated 09.09.2024 and only thereafter was the electricity restore. Copy of order dt. 09.09.2024 passed by District Commission and receipt of deposit of Rs. 10,000/ is annexed herewith and marked Annexure A-11 & A-12.
XIV. After the service of the complaint respondent no. 1 filed their written statement and raised various grounds. The respondent also filed the rejoinder and thereafter, respondent no. 1 filed an application to decide maintainability of the complaint and raised ground that chamber no 298 Western wing the electricity connection was installed in the name of Mr. Amrit Rai hence, appellant is not FA/240/2025 D.O.D.:17.07.2025 ANURADHA SHARMA VS TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. ORS covered under the definition of consumer. The appellant filed the reply to the application and also argued the matter. However, the learned district commission without considering the definition of the consumer which also included the beneficiary in the amendment of 2019, dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant is not maintainable as the complaint is not consumer of the electricity connection installed in the chamber. The Id. District forum failed to see that Chamber was transferred by Mr. Amrit Rai and authorized to use all the amenities with the Chamber. The Appellant is the beneficiary of the electricity connection and can file the complaint in her name as consumer and covered under the Consumer Protection Act as Amended 2019. The Appellant also relied on the judgement of hon'ble Commission in the matter Hari Chand vs. Haryana Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., where tenant change the bills installed in the name of the owner. The Hon'ble commission held that Complainant is the consumer under the Act and complaint is maintainable.
4. The order passed by the learned district commission is completely wrong, bad in law and against the well-established law that the definition of the consumer is very wider and after the amendment beneficiaries of the service are also covered under the definition of the consumer protection Act and liberal meaning is to be given to the meaning of consumer and beneficiary are covered under the consumer protection act.
5.That Ld. District form completely failed to see that the chamber at the Tis Hazari Court was allotted by the Delhi Bar association respondent no. 2 and same is transferable only with the premise of the respondent no. 2 and in the present case the chamber was also transferred by the Bar Association of the Delhi in the name of the appellant from Mr. Amrit Rai, who was using the electricity connection earlier, Mr. Amrit Rai has given no objection to the Appellant to use the chamber in question and thereafter the appellant was using the chamber and paying the electricity charges to the respondent no 1. It is submitted that it was not the case of Respondent no. 1 that it is a case of misuse, FA/240/2025 D.O.D.:17.07.2025 ANURADHA SHARMA VS TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. ORS the case of Respondent no. 1 that they issued the correct bill as per the use.
6. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly mentions that beneficiary is the person who is using the service for consideration, is covered under the definition of consumer. ln present case also the electricity was disconnected only on the ground that the occupant of the Chamber had not paid the electricity bill not for the reason that same use not used by the person whom connection was provided. In the present matter Mr. Amrit Rai has given no objection and after no objection the complaint was using the chamber as well electricity. Hence, the appellant is the consumer under the consumer protection act and an order passed by the Learned District Commission (North) is liable to be dismissed."
3. The respondent no.1, on the other hand, filed reply to the present appeal wherein, he denied all the allegations of the appellant and submitted that there is no error in the impugned order as the entire material available on record was properly scrutinized before passing the said order. The respondent no.1 has submitted that the learned District Commission has rejected the complaint rightly. It is submitted that the complaint is not maintainable on many fronts and was rightly rejected. The respondent no.1 has absolutely no privity of contract with the appellant. In past 16 years, appellant never represented that she was the beneficiary of the said connection or that Mr. Amrit Rai was no more the allottee of the said chamber or that the agreement under which she was allegedly claiming benefit of electricity was bad. The appellant has failed to put across that she was the consumer of respondent no.1 or that there was any deficiency in services of respondent no.1. As regards Tariff/ Tariff Category applicable to appellant, the right to determine the same lies with the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) and respondent no.1 does not have any role FA/240/2025 D.O.D.:17.07.2025 ANURADHA SHARMA VS TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. ORS to play in it. Moreover, the same cannot be termed as deficiency by any sane imagination. If the appellant is aggrieved by the Tariff Category being applied to advocates, she must approach the right forum and not under Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It is further submitted that it is not the case of appellant that there was any deficiency in service Moreover, the learned District Commission did not have the jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the complaint in the first place and should have rejected the same on the said ground also. It is denied that appellant has any contract/ agreement with the respondent no.1. It is denied that appellant is the allottee/owner of said chamber; the user of said connection; the beneficiary of said connection; authorised by the Registered Consumer to use the said electricity connection.
4. It is also denied that the Complaint was maintainable; the determination of tariff lies within the domain of respondent no.1; being an Advocate, the appellant is eligible to use electricity at Domestic Tariff in chamber.
5. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent no.1 that electricity connection in question has been energised in the said chamber in the name of Registered Consumer Mr. Amrit Rai since 2009 and the same is billed accordingly, as per Tariff Category determined by Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC). As on date, a bill of Rs.34,491/- is outstanding against the said connection (Rs.22,021/- as NTA amount and Rs. 12,470/- as current demand). payable with applicable Late Payment Surcharge (LPSC) as not paid till date and same is lawful, correct and payable. It is submitted that since bills against the said connection were not paid, electricity was disconnected as per law. It is further submitted that the impugned order is correct on the aspect of there being no relation between the appellant and respondent FA/240/2025 D.O.D.:17.07.2025 ANURADHA SHARMA VS TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. ORS no.1. Moreover, the learned District Commission did not have the jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the Complaint in the first place and should have rejected the same on said ground also. It is submitted that the appeal as well as complaint is not maintainable in the first place.
6. Written submissions have been filed on behalf of the appellant.
7. We have carefully perused the material on record as well as written submissions filed by the appellant.
8. Vide impugned order dated 26.03.2025, the learned District Commission has decided MA-296/24 whereby the Opposite Party No.1 (herein respondent no.1), had moved an application praying for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the complainant (herein appellant) is not a Consumer.
9. Admittedly, the appellant, who is a practicing advocate, is allottee of Chamber No. 298 Ground Floor, Western Wing, Tis Hazari Court Complex. The said Chamber was earlier allotted in the name of Mr. Amrit Rai Gupta Advocate who has not been impleaded as a party before the District Commission. This Chamber was subsequently transferred in the name of the appellant on 15.09.2009 by the Delhi Bar Association/ Opposite Party No.2 (herein respondent no.2).
10. It is also pertinent to mention that Mr. Amrit Rai Gupta had relinquished his rights in this Chamber and has communicated no objection for transfer of this chamber in the name of the appellant. The appellant has also paid the chamber transfer fee to the Delhi Bar Association. The electricity connection existed prior to the transfer of this chamber and is still continuing in the name of Mr. Amrit Rai Gupta.
11. By way of the impugned order, the District Commission has allowed MA-206/24 and dismissed the complaint on the ground FA/240/2025 D.O.D.:17.07.2025 ANURADHA SHARMA VS TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. ORS that the appellant is not a Consumer within the meaning of provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
12. The District Commission was conscious enough that they have granted interim relief to the appellant and permitted the appellant to take appropriate steps and also to move appropriate forum for redressal of her grievance in accordance with law.
13. The interim relief was granted by the District Commission to the appellant on 09.09.2024 which was continued till the date of passing of the impugned order i.e. 26.03.2025 and therefore, the District Commission has directed that the interim relief shall continue in operation for a period of six weeks from 26.03.2025 during which period the appellant shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.
14. Pursuant to this order, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant and pleaded that she is a consumer within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and has referred to Section 2 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. She has submitted that after the amendment of Consumer Protection Act beneficiary are included in the definition of the 'consumer' and also covers the person who avail the services, may be in the name of the other person.
15. Case of the appellant is that even though the electricity meter is in the name of Mr. Amrit Rai Gupta i.e. the earlier occupant, however, she is the beneficiary of the use of the connection. As per the case of the appellant, Mr. Amrit Rai Gupta surrendered his allotment in favour of the appellant and respondent no.2 allotted the chamber in her name with all the amenities, fitting and fixtures. She had been paying the bills as per the consumption.
16. The grievance of the appellant is that the learned District Commission without considering the definition of the consumer FA/240/2025 D.O.D.:17.07.2025 ANURADHA SHARMA VS TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. ORS which also include the beneficiary in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, dismissed the complaint on the ground that complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a Consumer of the electricity connection installed in the chamber.
17. It has also been pleaded that the judgment titled 'Hari Chand vs. Haryana Vidhyut Nigam Ltd. [2017(1) CPR 774]' passed by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, was relied upon by the appellant, wherein the tenant challenged the bills issued in the name of the owner and the complaint was held to be maintainable.
18. In Para No.5 of the appeal it has been averred that Mr. Amrit Rai Gupta was using the electricity connection earlier, and he has given no objection to the appellant to use the chamber after transferring the same in her name and paying the electricity charges to respondent no.1. It is further submitted that it is not the case of the respondent no.1 that they have issued the correct bill as per the use.
19. It has also been pleaded on behalf of the appellant that as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court beneficiary is the person who is using the service for consideration and is covered under the definition of the Consumer. Since the electricity was disconnected only on the ground that the occupant of the Chamber had not paid the electricity bill not for the reason that same was not used by the person whom connection was provided. The earlier occupant Mr. Amrit Rai Gupta has given no objection and after that the appellant was using the chamber as well as electricity. Hence, the appellant is the consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
20. The objections raised by respondent no.1 are three fold. The first objection is that there was no privity of contract between the FA/240/2025 D.O.D.:17.07.2025 ANURADHA SHARMA VS TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. ORS appellant and respondent no.1. Admittedly, the appellant is not a Registered Consumer. The electricity connection installed in the chamber No.298 vide electricity connection No.60002054942 is still in the name of Mr. Amrit Rai Gupta who had given no objection for transfer of the chamber in the name of the appellant and the chamber was transferred in the name of the appellant on 15.09.2009. It is also pertinent to mention that till date as per the case of respondent no.1, the appellant has not taken steps for transfer of electricity connection in her name and since, 15.09.2009 i.e. for the last about sixteen years she has been using the electricity but she has not taken steps for transfer of the electricity connection in her name.
21. 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.
22. It is also noteworthy that the District Commission has rightly analyzed the judgment relied by the appellant of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission i.e. Hari Chand Vs. Haryana Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. reported as 2017 (1) CPR 774 whereby it has been held that even the beneficiary of the service falls under the category of the consumer. It is rightly analyzed by the District Commission in Para No.6 of the impugned order that 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 FA/240/2025 D.O.D.:17.07.2025 ANURADHA SHARMA VS TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. ORS on a lease from its owner for a limited period of two years and was also using the electricity connection which was in the name of owner. It is also rightly observed by the District Commission that the beneficiary of the electricity connection, i.e. lease-holder, was using the electricity connection under the authorization of the actual owner of the property and the electricity connection. But in the case in hand, Mr. 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 qua the said chamber and the said chamber is now transferred in the name of the appellant 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 authorization 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.
23. In para No.7 of the impugned order the District Commission has rightly observed that after allotment of the chamber the electricity connection cannot get automatically transferred in the name of the appellant. The complainant had to take steps to get transfer the electricity connection in her name. It has also been rightly observed by the District Commission that the appellant is not using the chamber on behalf of Mr. Amrit Rai Gupta after he relinquished his rights qua the chamber. Therefore, she (appellant) cannot be stated to be the beneficiary of the electricity connection in the name of Mr. Amrit Rai Gupta.
24. The judgment in case titled as "Hari Chand Vs. Haryana Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. (supra) is not disputed but as discussed in para supra, it is differentiable with the facts in the instant case.
FA/240/2025 D.O.D.:17.07.2025 ANURADHA SHARMA VS TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. ORS
25. It has also been rightly observed by the District Commission that after transfer of the chamber in the name of the appellant in absence of the subsequent transfer of electricity connection in the name of the complainant, the complainant cannot be considered as a consumer. She cannot be considered as beneficiary under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 as has already been discussed that the facts of Hari Chand's case (supra) are differentiable as neither the electricity connection is in the name of the complainant/appellant nor the complainant is a beneficiary of the electricity connection as the electricity connection is still in the name of Mr. Amrit Rai Gupta who is the previous allottee.
26. The second objection taken by the respondent no.1 is that connection being of Non-Domestic Category, appellant did not qualify to be the consumer and the third objection is that the District Commission did not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue being related to the Tariff Determination whereof was squarely within the domain of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission as per Electricity Act, 2003.
27. The respondent no.1 has pleaded that the complaint has been rightly dismissed by the District Commission. Respondent no.1 has referred the various provisions of Electricity Act 2003 including Sections 82, 86, 61, 62, 45 & 65. Thereafter, after referring to these sections, it has been submitted on behalf of respondent no.1 that a cumulative study of Section 45, 61, 62 and 86 of the Electricity Act leads to the conclusion that the determination of Electricity Tariff in India, for all forms, be it Generation, Transmission or Distribution comes squarely under the sole jurisdiction of Central/ State Electricity Regulatory Commissions and respondent no.1 does not have any role to play in the same.
FA/240/2025 D.O.D.:17.07.2025 ANURADHA SHARMA VS TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. ORS
28. It has also been submitted on behalf of respondent no.1 that Tariff Determination being related and specialized expertise and sectoral knowledge about engineering and finance, a complete mechanism is provided under the Electricity Act and the same is impliedly barred from jurisdiction of Consumer Fora, more so in the light of Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhulabhai and Ors Vs. State of M.P reported as AIR 1969 SC 78.
29. The respondent no.1 has also referred to Section 65 of the Electricity Act which provides for a provision of Subsidy by the concerned State Government. Here it is noteworthy that the main grievance of the appellant is that the bills have been raised on Non-Domestic Use, however, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court, Advocates have to be charged with Domestic Use charges. The case of respondent no.1 is that since they have no power to change the Tariff which is as per the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) guidelines and since the tariff has been decided as Non-Domestic, therefore, the bill is raised on Non-Domestic Tariff, however, bills are being paid on Domestic Charges and the balance amount for non-domestic and Domestic Category is paid by the Delhi Government to respondent no.1.
30. It has been submitted by respondent no.1 that as per Section 65 of the Electricity Act, State Government can give subsidy to any consumer or class of consumers in the tariff determined by the State Commission under section 62, and the said amount shall be paid in advance to the concerned Distribution Company, meaning thereby that Tariff would remain what has been determined by the State Commission and State Government may accord benefit/ FA/240/2025 D.O.D.:17.07.2025 ANURADHA SHARMA VS TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. ORS compensation in terms of subsidy on its own accord to any set of consumers.
31. The respondent no.1 has also clarified that in terms of Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission, all the electricity connections for lawyer chamber across Delhi including the electricity connection in question, are billed at Non-Domestic Category i.e. (NDLT-LC, meaning Non-Domestic-Lawyer Chamber) and Delhi Government subsidizes it to the effect that net payable equates to Domestic Tariff. The balance amount for Non-Domestic and Domestic Tariff is paid by Delhi Government to the answering respondent no.1.
32. It has also been submitted by the respondent no.1 that as on date a bill of Rs.34,491/- is outstanding against the connection in question (Rs.22,021/-) as NTA Amount and Rs.12,470/-as current demand) payable with applicable late payment surcharge as not paid till date and same is lawful, correct and payable. Copy of the latest bill dated 17.06.2025 has also been filed by the respondent no.1 as Annexure-5 which is on Page-52 of the reply. The respondent no.1 has vehemently submitted that the appellant does not qualify to be considered as a Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
33. The learned counsel for respondent no.1 has also relied on judgment titled as 'Shrikant G. Mantri Versus Punjab National Bank, (Civil AppealNo.11397 of 2016), reported as [2022] 5 S.C.R. 945', which was with regard to the commercial purpose passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It has been submitted that the appellant does not come within the definition of Consumer as per Act, nor there lies any question of any deficiency in service.
FA/240/2025 D.O.D.:17.07.2025 ANURADHA SHARMA VS TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. ORS
34. It has further been submitted on behalf of the respondent no.1 that deficiency has been defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which means " any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service and includes-- (i) any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer; and (ii) deliberate withholding of relevant information by such person to the consumer".
35. The respondent no.1 has also submitted that respondent no.1 is a regulated entity having absolutely no role in determining/ deciding Tariff/ Tariff Categories. It works only as a regulated entity under the aegis of DERC Regulations. It is not the case of the appellant that there is imperfection / fault of the service of the respondent no.1 or that there has been any negligence on part of respondent no.1, or that respondent no.1 is withholding any information. If we consider these arguments, we are in agreement with the respondent no.1 submissions put forth by respondent no.1 that respondent no.1 has no role in determining/ deciding Tariff/ Tariff Categories. It works as a regulated entity under DERC Regulations.
36. Only grievance of the appellant is that the bill has been raised under Non-Domestic Category and the lawyers / advocates have to be under Domestic Category. As regards this remark is concerned, we have discussed in detail in para supra regarding raising of demand under Non-Domestic Category i.e. (NDLT-LC, meaning Non-Domestic-Lawyer Chamber) and Delhi Government subsidizes it to the effect that net payable equates to Domestic FA/240/2025 D.O.D.:17.07.2025 ANURADHA SHARMA VS TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. ORS Tariff. However, the difference between the Non-Domestic and Domestic Tariff is paid by the Delhi Government to respondent no.1.
37. It has also been vehemently submitted by respondent no.1 that in terms of Section 45, 61, 62 and 86 of the Electricity Act, domain of determination of electricity tariff/ category falls within the dominion of Statutory bodies constituted under the Electricity Act and that power cannot be usurped by Statutory Bodies under the Consumer Protection Act to determine tariff against the mandate of Electricity Act 2003.
38. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant has relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the matter U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmad, SLP (C) No.33562 of 2011. Para No.45 and 47 of the said judgment read as under:
"45. The National Commission though held that the intention of the Parliament is not to bar the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act and have saved the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, failed to notice that by virtue of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or Sections 173,174 and 175 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Consumer Forum cannot derive power to adjudicate a dispute in relation to assessment made under Section 126 or offences under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, as the acts of indulging in "unauthorized use of electricity" as defined under Section 126 or committing offence under Sections 135 to 140 do not fall within the meaning of "complaint" as defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
46.......
47. In view of the observation made above, we hold that:
(i)......
(ii)......
(iii) The Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs parallel for giving redressal to any person, who falls within the meaning of "consumer" under Section FA/240/2025 D.O.D.:17.07.2025 ANURADHA SHARMA VS TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. ORS 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or the Central Government or the State Government or association of consumers but it is limited to the dispute relating to "unfair trade practice" or a "restrictive trade practice adopted by the service provider"; or "if the consumer suffers from deficiency in service"; or "hazardous service"; or "the service provider has charged a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law".
39. In view of Para 47(iii) of the said judgment, it is clear that the Consumer Protection Act and Electricity Act, 2003 run parallel for giving redressal to any person, who falls within the meaning of "consumer" but is limited to the dispute relating to "unfair trade practice" or a "restrictive trade practice adopted by the service provider"; or "if the consumer suffers from deficiency in service"; or "hazardous service"; or "the service provider has charged a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law"
40. We are of the considered view that the case of the appellant does not fall under any of these categories i.e. dispute related to unfair trade practice or a restrictive trade practice adopted by respondent no.1 or the appellant suffers from deficiency in service or hazardous service or respondent no.1 has charged a price in excess of the price fixed by or under the DERC Regulations.
41. It is amply clear that the Tariff has been fixed by the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) and in terms of Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission, all the electricity connections for lawyer chambers across Delhi including the electricity connection in question, are billed at Non-Domestic Category i.e. (NDLT-LC, meaning Non-Domestic-Lawyer Chamber) and Delhi Government subsidizes it to the effect that net payable equates to Domestic Tariff. The balance amount for Non-Domestic and Domestic Tariff is paid by Delhi Government to the respondent no.1.
FA/240/2025 D.O.D.:17.07.2025 ANURADHA SHARMA VS TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. ORS
42. It has also been submitted on behalf of the respondent no.1 that the registered Consumer Mr. Amrit Rai Gupta has never raised any objection towards the Non-Domestic Category till date and continues to utilize the services without any demur. The appellant is also estopped from raising such contention about Domestic / Non-Domestic bill, who had remained silent for last sixteen years.
43. It is also not disputed that a Civil Suit vide CS No.52/2014 was filed by the Delhi Bar Association (herein respondent no.2) on the issue of Tariff Category before the learned Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Court, which was dismissed in-limine on the ground that determination of Tariff and Tariff Categories is the exclusive domain of Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission with Civil Courts having no power in this regard. This order was challenged before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in RFA No. 411/2014 and vide order dated 24.05.2016 i.e. the final order, the Hon'ble High Court directed the Delhi Bar Association/ respondent no.2 to avail proper remedy and approach DERC/APTEL for redressal of their issue with respect to tariff category. The Hon'ble High Court has also directed the respondent no.1 that till the time said issue was decided by DERC / APTEL upon application of Delhi Bar Association, the members of Delhi Bar Association could be allowed to pay electricity charges at Domestic Rates only. Pursuant to judgment of the Hon'ble High Court dated 24.05.2016, Delhi Bar Association approached the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) in APL No.361/2018. Though the bills were raised at Non-Domestic Category, the consumer/lawyer continued to pay bills as per Domestic Category Charge, in terms of directions of the Hon'ble High Court in RFA No.411/2014.
FA/240/2025 D.O.D.:17.07.2025 ANURADHA SHARMA VS TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. ORS
44. In the year 2017, a special subsidy scheme was launched for lawyers by the Govt. of NCT Delhi for lawyer chambers. As per the Scheme, while Tariff Category for Lawyer Chambers remained Non- Domestic, subsidy was given by GNCTD for the variable between Non-Domestic Tariff and Domestic Tariff meaning thereby that while tariff remained Non-Domestic, lawyers were effectively required to pay bill as per Domestic Category Rates and the difference between tariff was paid by GNCTD to the distribution company respondent no.1 in the shape of subsidy. This subsidy scheme was extended by GNCTD from time to time and continues till date. Even copies of such Subsidy Scheme dated 21.12.2017, 26.12.2019, 03.10.2022 and 14.04.2023 have also been enclosed by the respondent no.1 in its reply as annexure R-2.APL No. 361/2018 was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn on 30.09.2024.
45. It is also clear from the record that respondent no.1 has no privity of contract with the appellant since 15.09.2009 i.e. for the last about sixteen years. Appellant has failed to put across that she was consumer of respondent no.1 or there was any deficiency in service. Admittedly, she is not a Registered Consumer. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant is a practicing advocate and the bill is with respect to the Chamber which has been transferred in her name for about sixteen years ago i.e. 15.09.2009.
46. It is also clear that for the Tariff / Tariff Category applicable to the appellant, the right to determine the same lies with the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission. Respondent no.1 does not have any role to play in it raising of the bill on Non-Domestic Category as per the Tariff Category fixed by the Delhi Electricity FA/240/2025 D.O.D.:17.07.2025 ANURADHA SHARMA VS TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. ORS Regulatory Commission. It cannot be termed as deficiency by any imagination.
47. The appellant is aggrieved by the Tariff Category being applied to the advocate, she is at liberty to take necessary steps to approach the right forum and not under the Consumer Protection Act 2019. She is neither the consumer nor there is any deficiency in service in this case. She has no privity of contract with respondent no.1. Since the chamber has been transferred in her name about sixteen years ago i.e. on 15.09.2009, she could have taken steps for transfer of electricity connection in her name for Tariff Category.
48. We have already discussed in detail in para supra that Non-
Domestic Category has been fixed by Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission and respondent no.1 does not have any role to fix the category. Respondent no.1 considered the Tariff Category and billed as per the Tariff Category. However, as per the subsidy granted by GNCTD the payment is to be as per the Domestic Category. The difference is being paid by the Government of Delhi. Since, the main dispute is regarding raising of bill on Non- Domestic Category, it is well settled law that the Consumer Fora do not have jurisdiction to try or adjudicate upon the matter.
49. The appellant remained silent about the determination of Tariff or Tariff Category etc. by Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission and on the fact that respondent no.1 has no power to change the category which has been provided by the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission. The bill has to be raised as per the category fixed by the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission. As regards the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora when a dispute concerning tariff has been raised, the appellant remains silent on this issue."
FA/240/2025 D.O.D.:17.07.2025 ANURADHA SHARMA VS TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. ORS
50. Therefore, this Commission is of the view that it has rightly been held by the District Commission that the appellant is not a Consumer within the meaning of the provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
51. Thus, we do not find any reason to reverse the findings of the District Commission. Consequently, we uphold the order dated 26.03.2025, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (North District), Ground Floor, Court Annexe-2, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi-110054. Consequently, the present Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
52. Application(s) pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
53. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
54. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced on 17.07.2025
No comments:
Post a Comment