First Appeal No. 273 of 2011. Case: Ramesh Kumar Rohilla Vs North Delhi Power Ltd.. Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | First Appeal No. 273 of 2011 |
| Judges | S.A. Siddiqui, Member (J) and S.C. Jain, Member |
| Issue | Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(d), 2(1)(o) |
| Citation | I (2014) CPJ 273 (Del.) |
| Judgement Date | February 17, 2014 |
| Court | Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Judgment:
S.A. Siddiqui, Member (J)
-
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 4.5.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (V) CSC Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088 in Complaint Case No. 480/2010, Sh. R.K. Rohilla v. North Delhi Power Ltd., Delhi. The appellant/complainant Sh. R.K. Rohilla, owner, of the office area 36 sq. mts. and number 208, IInd Floor, Bhanot Bhawan, Flat B-1/2, Commercial Complex, Azadpur, Delhi, is the consumer having NDPL's permanent electricity meter connection (non-domestic light) K. No. 36204270979T in electricity district of Model Town, Delhi. The OP/respondent, NDPL is service provider. Sh. R.K. Rohilla filed consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. During the course of the proceedings an application was moved by the respondent/O.P. raising a preliminary objection to the effect that complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act) and that the complaint was not maintainable. The complainant/appellant filed objection against the application of the OP/respondent. Learned District Forum after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the complainant/appellant was not a consumer within the definition of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and therefore the complaint was not maintainable and was therefore dismissed. The complainant felt aggrieved and preferred this appeal inter-alia, on the following main grounds, besides the others:
(i) That the use of the electricity under non-domestic light connection by the complainant is not a commercial purpose activity. The electricity was being used to facilitate the working of the complainant's business. As a matter of fact the complainant was engaged in the business of purchase and sale of pipes. In such a business trading and the sale of pipes was a commercial activity and not the use of electricity. Moreover, it was not possible to run an industry with an electrical connection load of 2 kilowatt being used by complainant/appellant.
(ii) That the electricity is not being used or consumed in the premises concerned as power consumption to operate any machinery for purpose of manufacturer any article.
(iii) The learned District Forum failed to appreciate that the complaint was maintainable before the District Forum in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission in Harsolia Motors v. National Insurance Company Pvt...
To continue reading
Request your trial