NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1750/2019

PASHCHIMANCHAL VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ASHA MITTAL - Opp.Party(s)

MR. PRADEEP MISRA & MR. DALEEP DHYANI

13 Feb 2024

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. 1750 OF 2019

(Against the Order dated 03/06/2019 in Appeal No. 1434/2017 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh)

1. PASHCHIMANCHAL VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ANR. THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER EUDD-III, 33/11 KV SUB STATION PATEL NAGAR II, GHAZIABAD UTTAR PRADESH 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, EUDD III PASCHIMANCHAL VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. 33/11, KV SUB STATION PATEL NAGAR, GHAZIABAD UTTAR PRADESH	...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. ASHA MITTAL W/O. SRI P.D. MITTAL ADVOCATE, M/S. MITTAL AND MITTAL ADVOCATES 3, NAVYUG MARKET III, GHAZIABAD UTTAR PRADESH	...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
	HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH,PRESIDING MEMBER

FOR THE PETITIONER :

MR. DALEEP DHYANI, ADVOCATE MR. BHUWAN CHANDRA, ADVOCATE

FOR THE RESPONDENT :

MR. P.P. MITTAL, ADVOCATE

Dated : 13 February 2024

ORDER

Heard Counsel for both the parties. In this case there are concurrent findings of both the fora below against the Petitioner herein. The District Forum vide its order has directed the Petitioner herein to restore the electric supply of the premises of Complainant and also amend the bill, ordering the conversion of the connection from commercial to domestic. The State Commission in its order has partly allowed the appeal by modifying the order of District Forum and directed the Petitioner herein to amend the bill as per Clause 3.3 (d) of Uttar Pradesh Electricity Supply Code, 2005 and provide the amended bill to the Respondent / Complainant and restore the connection within a week. We have carefully gone through the order of the State Commission / District Forum and other relevant records and rival contentions of the Parties. It is the case of the Petitioner herein that the building in question is commercial building, the Respondent is using the same for the commercial purpose, were paying the bill from 1992 to 2016 as commercial / non-domestic category. The Respondent, on the other hand, contends that no doubt the building in question is commercial building but there are floor wise spaces permitted to be used for residential cum commercial purposes and they are using third floor of the said building. The learned Counsel for Respondent contends that in the same building, for the second floor Petitioners have already converted the occupant’s connection from non-domestic to domestic. Learned Counsel for Petitioner admits that if any portion / floor of building in question is used by the occupant for use as advocate, keeping in view the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, they are charging only non-domestic, but in the present case the Respondent is not the person who is carrying on the profession of Advocate, it is her husband who is carrying the profession of Advocate.   During the hearing the learned Counsel for Petitioner was not able to specifically state as to whether the Respondent herein is carrying out any commercial activities in the said third floor of the building in question in her name.   As per held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi Chandra Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269], the scope in a Revision Petition is limited. Such powers can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order. In Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. [AIR (2022) SC 577]  held that “the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.” In the present case, it is not in dispute that the husband of the Respondent herein is working as advocate in the said premises, had the premises been in the name of the husband, the Petitioner herein could have allowed the connection to be non-domestic. In our considered view the connection being in the Respondent’s herein and her husband working as Counsel should not make a difference in categorising the nature of the connection, specially considering that in the same building, in another floor, those who are running their profession as advocate, they are being charged for non-domestic rates. There is no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission. Hence, the same is upheld. Accordingly, Revision Petition is dismissed. Pending IAs, if any, also stand disposed off.

................................................

DR. INDER JIT SINGH

PRESIDING MEMBER