ORDER

27.03.2024

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. In brief the facts of the present case are that plaintiff is the owner of office spare area 36 square meters and no. 201, 2^nd floor, Bhanaut Bhawan, Plot No.B-1/2, Commercial Complex, Azadpur, Delhi-33. It is stated that complainant is having NDPL’s permanent electricity connection meter K No.36104011533F. It is stated that on 22.09.2009 OP changed the old single  phase meter to three phase meter on the request on payment of all charges applicable for load increase. It is further stated that meter was changed in order to save money from Rs.5.40 per unit to Rs.4.92 per unit which are the current rate of electricity used upto 10 KW and beyond 10KW respectively thus thinking that Rs.0.48 per unit will be saved by using 11KW three phase meter.
2. It is stated that plaintiff received bills of excessive  amount immediately after the change of single meter to three phase meter i.e bill no.0911274784 dated 14.11.2009 of Rs.14,090.00/- and a complaint vide letter no. RKR/NDPL/09-10/01 dated 20.11.2009 was sent to rectify the bill but  OP did not take any action. It is further stated that after consulting non technical person plaintiff  made another request on 15.12.2009 for change  of meter from three phase to single phase vide request no.0910799758 but OP did not take any action.
3. It is stated that plaintiff deposited Rs.17,880/- on 16.12.2009 against the bill no. 0912553935 dated 06.12.2009 having arrears of Rs.14,090/-. It is further stated that again plaintiff received exorbitantly high amount bill no. 1001227446 dated 12.01.2010 of Rs.27,480/-. The plaintiff again made complaint to OP against excessive bill vide letter no. RKR/NDPL/09-10/02 dated 20.01.2010. It is further stated that plaintiff requested to visit his office and inspect the power consumption as his consumption is low in the winter season and plaintiff  is also using normal computer mode, all electrical bulbs are of CFL and no AC is being used. It is stated that plaintiff again received excessive bill and again written letter no. RKR/NDPL/09-10/06 dated 01.02.2010.
4. It is stated that plaintiff made a complaint on 02.02.2010 to CGRF for NDPL and a copy was sent to the Secretary DERC requesting the redressal of his genuine grievance. It is stated that NDPL sent a letter dated 06.02.2010 issued by Manager (Commercial) Nani Wala Bagh, Azadpur, Delhi stating that the meter got accu-check and accuracy found within limit, therefore, the bill cannot be revised and the demand so raised  is in order. It is stated that plaintiff replied to OP by sending letter no. RKR/NDPL/09-10/08 dated 26.02.2010 and submitted average power consumption.
5. It is stated that the OP instead  of taking action on the bill rectification sent a notice of disconnection under section 56 of Electricity Act, 2003 which was received by plaintiff on 16.02.2010 vide reference  no. 2711087 dated 13.02.2010. It is further stated that OP threatened to the plaintiff by mentioning Section 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and warned the plaintiff to pay full amount of the excessive bill within 15 days otherwise power supply will be disconnected. It is stated that plaintiff again replied to OP by sending letter no. RKR/NDPL/09-10/09 dated 26.02.2010 and asked to withdraw the notice. It is stated that on 12.03.2010 plaintiff got a letter no. NDPL/CCAG/187 dated 24.02.2010 from OP without any explanation.
6. It is stated that OP sent a letter reference no. Manager (Commercial)/09-10/325 dated 23.02.2010 stating that meter tested on 02.02.2010 is OK and the bill of Rs.27,483/- upto 09.01.2010 is as per reading recorded in the meter. It is further stated that OP sent bill no. 1003046934 dated 06.03.2010 wherein provisional refund of Rs.7773.07/- and the adjustment of Rs.28,477/- has been made and outstanding is Rs.7750/- payable by plaintiff. It is further stated that plaintiff replied  to OP by sending letter no. RKR/NDPL/09-10/12 dated 19.03.2010 alongwith average power consumption statement. The plaintiff also requested to provide details and basis for adjustment made in bill dated 06.03.2010.
7. It is stated that plaintiff submitted to CGRF another letter reference no. RKR/NDPL/09-10/14 dated 19.03.2010 alongwith other correspondence with NDPL. It is further stated that plaintiff received on 20.03.2010 letter no. F.7(25)/DERC/2007-08/N-270/5726 dated 12.03.2010 from DERC regarding complaint. It is further stated that plaintiff with disappointment noted that DERC forwarded the letter of plaintiff and remained silent spectator and failed to timely resolve the genuine complaint of the plaintiff. It is stated that CGRF should have passed appropriate order for disposal of grievance as for as possible within 60 days of the filing of the complaint. It is stated that copy of letter no. CG2671/02/10/MDT/57 dated 05.02.2010 and another letter dated CG2671/02/10/MDT/526 received on 01.04.2010 for personal hearing on 19.04.2010.
8. It is stated that NDPL is not mentioning in their bills the previous and current power consumption unit reading of each phase for three phase meter which is required to be given as per  the Act in order to derive the average power units consumed for calculation of bill amount. It is further stated that NDPL is mentioning a single reading for three phase meter which no one is able to compare it with original three  unit reading consumed and indicated in the meter itself. Thus, a fair representation of power units consumed is avoided. It is stated that NDPL is not giving any information to the  consumer on load distribution of each phase neither at the time of inspection of the premises when connection is demanded nor at the time when consumer request for reason for inflated bills.
9. It  is stated that NDPL is habitual in raising wrong bills/demand note to the plaintiff and earlier  also NDPL tried to extract Rs.3000/- when plaintiff approached for attribute to name change on his residence connection in the name of his wife Mr. Lalita Kumari. It is further stated that one more complaint of such nature filed before this  Hon’ble Forum and documents and demand notes filed on record. It is further stated that NDPL  is not paying any attention to the complaints made by plaintiff and acting arrogantly, raising false bills of exorbitantly high amounts and no care attitude even after complaints to CGRF and DERC. It is stated that NDPL also indulge in threatening  behavior  by  referring various sections of imprisonment and fine. It is stated that NDPL is exploiting the plaintiff as well as the  public at large to earn money by all means and measures without caring and respecting the law and its working in an organized manner with an intention of unfair trade  practice.
10. Hence, present complaint filed seeking direction to NDPL to rectify all the bills of three phase meter including bill no. 0911274784 dated 14.11.2009 of Rs.14,090/- and refund the same, direct the NDPL to show reading for each phase in the bills and not  to raise bills on false units of power consumption to the plaintiff and public at large specially in case of  three  phase meter when load is not uniform in each phase, to direct NDPL to refrain from writing threatening letters to plaintiff and the public at large by giving reference of various sections of imprisonment and fine in first instance rather asked for clarification and Rs. 1 lakh towards deficiency in service and Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and also cost of litigation be also awarded suitably.
11. Defendant NDPL filed detailed written statement and taken preliminary objections that there is no cause of action arose in favor of complainant and complainant has not come before this Hon’ble forum with clean hand and concealed the material facts therefore present complaint is not maintainable. The NDPL referred the judgment of the case of BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs. Saraff Project Pvt. Ltd. F.A No. 84 of 2009 (NC), K. Sagar, M.D. kiran Chit fund Musheerabad Vs. A. Bal Reddy and Anr. Civil appeal no. 1498 of 2005 decided on 11.06.2008 (Supreme Court, Arun Aggarwal Vs. Nagreeka Exports Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. (2002) 10 SCC 101 and TATA Timken Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Saroj Gupta and Ors. III (1993) CPJ 1783, H.P Electricity Board and Ors. Vs. Indus Hospital (FA 2008/2005) (NC). It is further stated that OP specifically stated that it reserves the right to comment on the commercial issue involved in the present matter after the outcome of SLP filed before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
12. On merit OP denied all the allegations made in the complaint and reiterated contents of the preliminary objections. It is stated that the bill raised dated 14.11.2009 amounting to Rs.14,090/- against the reading 1819 alongwith arrears was legal and correct and payable by plaintiff which also includes fixed  charges from 03.09.2009 to 09.11.2009 at the rate of 50 per KW per month. It is further stated that the request for changing meter from three phase to single phase vide request no. 0910799758 was not acceded due to the non fulfillment of statutory formalities and non payment of other dues. The complainant admitted that role was enhanced and meter was changed to three phase on 22.09.2009. The complainant also acknowledged that on 15.12.2009 complainant had sought reduction of load and change of meter to single phase. It is further stated that it was not permissible as per the statutory guidelines of Regulation 26 of DERC, 2007. The OP reproduced the Regulation 26 and 27 in the WS.
13. It is stated that plaintiff within the span of three months approximately made the request of enhancement of load alongwith the meter  change of three phase and reduction of load alongwith meter change to single phase. It is further stated that bill no. 100122746 dated 12.01.2010 was inadvertently raised on the wrong reading which was duly  examined and thereafter withdrawn giving credit adjustment of Rs.27,477/- in the bill month of February 2010. It is stated that plaintiff disputed the working of meter which was accua checked on 02.02.2010 by the respondent as a matter of practice and found working of the meter is within limits i.e +0.15%, therefore, the plaintiff cannot  take advantage of wrong functioning of the meter. It is further stated that the amount raised inadvertently for Rs.27,480/-was neither paid by plaintiff nor electricity was disconnected and same was  duly withdrawn giving the equal adjustment in credit, therefore, there is no deficiency or negligence on the part of OP.
14. It is stated that complainant in a very contemptuous manner for which he should be liable for  legal consequences as he put the allegations on the working of CGRF under 42 (5) of Electricity Act, 2003. It is further stated that a meter testing report conducted on the request  of complainant and meter was found in order within the permissible limit of +0.50%, therefore, a letter was sent apprising the complainant. It is stated that the electricity bills revised and electricity charges are legally payable by complainant. It is stated that no coercive action taken against complainant for disconnection of electricity.
15. It is stated that the bill was rectified and due credit was given in the month of February 2010 by reducing the  bill amount from 32,110 to 7000 approximately. It is further stated that the complainant is confused that three phase meter should show  three separate reading, the total demand is Rs.754 current demand, Rs.7063 arrears, Rs.791 LPSC, total amount Rs.8608, Rs.500 payment, Rs.8108 total, Rs.682 CD interest and Rs.7426 Grand Total. The OP filed summary and details of  K No. of the complainant. It is stated that complainant is not entitled for any relief as the impugned bill has been raised legally and lawfully and complainant is under statutory contractual obligation to pay. It is stated that present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
16. Complainant filed rejoinder and denied all the allegations made therein and reiterated contents of the complaint. It is stated that the issue of maintainability of non domestic connection is well settled now by the reasoned and speaking order of the Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi in FA 271/2011 decided  on 17.02.2014 wherein it is held “that it is abundantly clear that services may be for any connected  commercial activity, yet it would be within the purview of Consumer Protection Act. In the present case, the use of electricity is not intended to generate profit directly or indirectly. Therefore, it could not directly serve any commercial purpose, therefore, the complainant is  a consumer within the meaning of the Act.” It is further stated that thereafter National commission in the order dated 16.12.2014 in RP (C) no.1651/2014, NDPL Vs. R.K Rohilla upheld the decision of the Hon’ble State Commission. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the order dated 23.08.2016 in SLP (C) no.26557/2015 and SLP (C) no.27278/2015 (NDPLVs. R.K Rohilla) also upheld the above order of Hon’le National Commission and dismissed the SLP filed by TPDDL.
17. It is stated that the respondent has manipulated the readings in the bills and raised excessive bills to the complainant. It is further stated that respondent is still raising the bills unfairly with inflated readings and excessive amount to the complainant. It is stated that respondent has illegally enhanced the load from 8KW to 14KW/16KVA and raising the bills on the basis of wrong readings. It is stated that complainant is entitled to all the reliefs claimed in the complaint.
18. Complainant filed evidence by way of his affidavit and reiterated contents of the complaint. Complainant relied on copy of bill dated 14.11.2009 of Rs.14,090/- Annexure I, copy of letter dated 20.11.2009 as Annexure II, copy of bill dated 06.12.2009 Annexure III, copy of bill dated 12.01.2010 as Annexure IV, copy of letter dated 20.01.2010 Annexure V, copy of letter dated 01.02.2010 Annexure VI, copy of letter of respondent dated 06.02.2010 Annexure VII, copy of letter dated 26.02.2010 as Annexure VIII, copy of notice of respondent dated 13.02.2010 IX, copy of letter dated 26.02.2010 Annexure X, copy of respondent letter dated 23.02.2010 Annexure XI, copy of respondent letter dated 24.02.2010 Annexure XII, copy of bill dated 06.03.2010 Annexure XIII, copy of letter dated 19.03.2010 Annexure XIV, copy of bill dated 05.07.2010 Annexure XV, copy of bill dated 06.10.2010 Annexure XVI, copy of bills dated 10.05.2012 and 08.06.2012 Annexure XVII, copy of various wrong bills from November 2009 to January 2017 Annexure XVIII and copies of various correspondent Annexure XIX.
19. OP filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sanket Sharma CSM. In the affidavit contents of WS reiterated.
20. Complainant filed written arguments. OP also filed written arguments.
21. The OP filed application to consider additional information and documents and  another application to consider recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court.
22. We have heard complainant and person and Sh. Harish Purohit AR for OP.
23. The OP NDPL vehemently contested the present complaint and raised the objection  with regard to  the maintainability of the present complaint on the ground that complainant is not a “consumer” as per section 2 (1) (d) as he  is running commercial business. It is pertinent to mention here that the OP NDPL initially also filed  an application in this  regard which was contested by  complainant. The  predecessor bench vide order dated 04.05.2011  decided the said  application. The complainant preferred an appeal before  Hon’ble State Commission of Delhi. The Hon’ble State Commission vide judgment 04.04.2014 set aside the  order dated 04.05.2011 and remit  back the complaint case. The Hon’ble State Commission directed to decide the complaint on merit after affording the parties to adduce their evidence and thereafter decide the complaint according to law. The OP preferred Special Leave Petition SLP before  the Hon’ble  Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 23.08.2016, ‘Heard We find no merit in Special Leave Petition. The Special Leave Petition , therefore, dismissed. However, question of law is left open’.
24. The OP also filed the recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of Shrikant. G. Mantri Vs. Punjab National Bank Civil appeal no.11397 of 2016 decided on 22.02.2022. The OP NDPL also filed additional information and document wherein the business run of complainant in the name and Style of M/s Carewell pipes filed on record.
25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shrikant G. Mantri Vs Punjab National Bank laid down the prinicple of law in civil appeal no.11397 of 2016 dated 22.02.2022 that

32. The purpose of the said Act has been succinctly described by this Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G Industrial Institute, which is as under:

“10. A review of the provisions of the Act discloses that the quasi-judicial bodies-authorities/agencies created by the Act known as District Forums, State Commissions and the National Commission are not courts though invested with some of the powers of the civil court. They are quasi-judicial tribunals brought into existence to render inexpensive and speedy remedies to consumers. It is equally clear that these forums/commissions were not supposed to supplant but supplement the existing judicial system. The idea was to provide an additional forum providing inexpensive and speedy resolution of disputes arising between consumers and suppliers of goods and services. The forum so created is uninhibited by the requirement of court fee or the formal procedures of a court. Any consumer can go and file a complaint. Complaint need not necessarily be filed by the complainant himself; any recognized consumers’ association can espouse his cause. Where a large number of consumers have a similar complaint, one or more can file a complaint on behalf of all. Even the Central Government and State Governments can act on his/their behalf. The idea was to help the consumers get justice and fair treatment in the matter of goods and services purchase and availed by them in a market dominated by large trading and manufacturing bodies. Indeed, the entire Act revolves round the consumer and is designed to protect his interest. The Act provides for “business-to-consumer” disputes and not for “business-to-business” disputes. This scheme of the Act, in our opinion, is relevant to and helps in interpreting the words that fall for consideration in this appeal”.

33. It could thus be seen that this Court has clearly held that the idea of enacting the said Act was to help the consumers get justice and fair treatment in the matter of goods and services purchased and availed by them in a market dominated by large trading and manufacturing bodies. It has been held that the entire Act revolves round the consumer and is designed to protect his interest. It provides for “business-to-consumer” disputes and not for “business-to-business” disputes. It has been held that forums/commissions provided by the said Act are not supposed to supplant but supplement the existing judicial system. The idea was to provide an additional forum providing inexpensive and speedy resolution of disputes arising between consumers and suppliers of goods and services.

34. In the case of Laxmi Engineering Works (supra), this Court, while considering the scope of the definition of the expression ‘consumer’ with relation to Section 2 (1)(d)(i) of he said Act and the Explanation added by 1993 Amendment Act, observed thus:

“11.Now coming back to the definition of the expression ‘consumer’ in Section 2(d), a consumer means insofar as is relevant for the purpose of this appeal, (I) a person who buys any goods for consideration; it is immaterial whether the consideration is paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or whether the payment of consideration is deferred; (ii) a person who uses such goods with the approval of the person who buys such goods for consideration; (iii) but does not include a person who buys such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose. The expression ‘resale’ is clear enough. Controversy has, however, arisen with respect to meaning of the expression “commercial purpose”. It is also not defined in the Act. In the absence of a definition, we have to go by its ordinary meaning. ‘Commercial’ denotes “pertaining to commerce” (Chamber’s Twentieth Century Dictionary); it means “connected with, or engaged in commerce; mercantile; having profit as the main aim” (Collins English Dictionary) whereas the word ‘commerce’means “financial transactions especially buying and selling of merchandise, on a large scale” (Concise Oxford Dictionary). The National Commission appears to have been taking a consistent view that where a person purchases goods “with a view to using such goods for carrying on any activity on a large scale for the purpose of earning profit” he will not be a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(d)(i) of the Act. Broadly affirming the said view and more particularly with a view to obviate any confusion-the expression “large scale” is not a very precise expression-Parliament stepped in and added the explanation to Section 2(d)(i) by Ordinance/Amendment Act, 1993. The explanation excludes certain purposes from the purview of the expression “commercial purpose”- a case of exception to an exception. Let us elaborate: a person who buys a typewriter or a car and uses them for his personal use is certainly a consumer but a person who buys a typewriter or a car for typing others’ work for consideration or for plying the car as a taxi can be said to be using the typewriter/car for a commercial purpose. The explanation however clarifies that in certain situations, purchase of goods for “commercial purpose” would not yet take the purchaser out of the definition of expression ‘consumer’. If the commercial use is by the purchaser himself for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, such purchaser of goods is yet a ‘consumer’. In the illustration given above, if the purchaser himself works  on typewriter or plies the car as a taxi himself, her does not cease to be a consumer. In other words, if the buyer of goods uses them himself, i.e, by self-employment, for earning his livelihood, it would not be treated as a “commercial purpose” and he does not cease to be a consumer for the purposes of the Act. The explanation reduces the question, what is a “commercial purpose”, to a question of fact to be decided in the facts of each case. It is not the value of the goods that matters but the purpose to which the goods bought are put to. The several words employed in the explanation, viz, “uses them by himself”, “exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood” and “by means of self-employment” make the intention of Parliament abundantly clear, that the goods bought must be used by the buyer himself, by employing himself for earning his livelihood. A few more illustrations would serve to emphasise what we say. A person who purchases an auto-rickshaw to ply it himself on hire for earning his livelihood would be a consumer. Similarly, a purchaser of a truck who purchases it for plying it as a public carrier by himself would be a consumer. A person who purchases a lathe machine or other machine to operate it himself for earning his livelihood would be a consumer. (In the above illustrations, if such buyer takes the assistance of one or two persons to assist/help him in operating the vehicle or machinery, he does not cease to be a consumer.) As against this a person who purchases an auto-rickshaw, a car or a lathe machine or other machine to be plied or operated exclusively by another person would not be a consumer. This is the necessary limitation flowing from the expressions “used by him”, and “by means of self-employment” in the explanation. The ambiguity in the meaning of the words “for the purpose of earning his livelihood” is explained and clarified by the other two sets of words.”

41.In the case of Leelavati Kirti Lal Mehta Medical Trust (supra)wherein this court after considering the earlier judgments held thus:

“19. To summarise from the above discussion, though a strait jacket formula cannot be adopted in every case, the following broad principles can be culled out for determining whether an activity or transaction is “for  a commercial purpose”:

19.1. The question of whether a transaction is for a commercial purpose would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, ordinarily, “commercial purpose” is understood to include manufacturing/industrial activity or business-to-business transactions between commercial entities.

19.2 The purchase of the good or service should have a close and direct nexus with a profit-generating activity.

19.3 The identity of the person making the purchase or the value of the transaction is nto conclusive to the question  of whether it is for a commercial purpose. It has to be seen whether the dominant intention or dominant purpose for the transaction was to  facilitate some kind of profit generation for  the purchaser and/or their beneficiary.

19.4 If it is found that the dominant purpose behind purchasing the good or service was for the personal use and consumption of the purchaser and/or their  beneficiary, or is otherwise not linked to any commercial activity, the question of whether such a purchase was for the purpose of “generating livelihood by means of sel-employment” need not be looked into.”

42. It is thus clear, that this Court has held that the question, as to whether a transaction is for a commercial purpose would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, ordinarily, “commercial purpose” is understood to include manufacturing/industrial activity or business-to-business transactions between commercial entities; that the purchase of the good or service should have a close and direct nexus with a profit-generating activity; that the identity of the person making the purchase or the value of the transaction is not conclusive for determining the question as to whether it is for a commercial purpose or not. What is relevant is the dominant intention or dominant purpose for the transaction and as to whether the same was to facilitate some kind of profit generation for the purchaser and/or their beneficiary.

26. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant in the complaint has concealed the facts with regard to the  commercial activities carried by him. He has not mentioned that he has been running a Private Limited Company in the name and style of “Carewell Pipes”. The OP NDPL has filed documents which are not disputed by  the complainant. The complainant is the Director of Carewell Pipes Pvt. Ltd. and this company is in existence since 1997. The complainant sell Multi Layer Composite Pipes, Insulation System, Air Release Valves, Gas Valve, Water Valve, Teflon Tapes, Solar Heating System etc. The documents filed on record with regard to complainant’s private limited company which established that the complainant is also doing the business as importer and distributor and supplier or Grating etc. The complainant single handedly cannot run the private limited company and earning his livelihood or a self employed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Srikant G. Mantri (Supra) interpreted the definition of ‘consumer’, in para 39 it is specifically observed that “if a person purchased the goods for a commercial purpose and not for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment such purchaser had not come within definition of consumer. In the present case complainant concealed the true and material facts from the commission with regard to his running a private limited company as mentioned hereinabove. It cannot be possible to run such a big private limited company singly without  employing other 15 employees. The complainant is not solely earning his livelihood from the office for himself but he is also earning profit and livelihood of his employees. The facts established on record that the complainant is doing business to business transactions between commercial entities  which has  direct nexus with a profit generating activity. The dominant intention or dominant purpose for the transaction is to facilitate profit generation. The complainant is running a private limited company whose dominant purpose is commercial transaction and profit generation and it does not constitute generation of livelihood by means of self employment. An office may be small but complainant has not explained the load of 8KW or 11KW required by him for  such small office. Prior to filing of the present complaint case the complainant office was having  three phase connection and sanctioned  load  was 11KW. These  circumstances establish that the electricity used by complainant  is for running full fleged business  for generating profit by selling the products of M/s Carewell Pipes including import and distribution. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has also concealed material facts that he is also owner of office space no. 201, 2^nd floor, in the same building and at the same floor. The complainant further concealed the material facts that in another office he is having electricity connection of 11 K.W.  Therefore, as per principle laid down by hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Srikant. G. Mantri (Supra) the complainant does not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’ as per section 2 (1) (d) CP Act, 1986. In the present facts and circumstances of the case. Hence we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint is not maintainable before District Commission.
27. Now coming to merit of the present case the main grievance of the complainant is that OP has been raising  bill dated 14.11.2009 of Rs.14,090/- of three phase meter which requires rectification. The complainant during the pendency of the present case including several other  bills upto 2017 which are beyond the ambit of present complaint case. We have gone through the impugned bill. This bill mentioned the reading of 1819 and fixed charges from 03.09.2009 to 09.11.2009 at the rate of Rs.50 per  KW per month. It is admitted case of the complainant that on 22.09.2009 he applied for change of single phase meter to three phase meter and thereafter in 15.12.2009 again applied for change of meter from three phase to single phase. The impugned bill pertains to this peculiar period. It is further admitted case that on the request of complainant OP had undertaken checking of accuracy of the installed electricity meter  which was reported to be OK. The complainant never disputed  and challenged the accuracy report. In these special  circumstances of the case we do not find any ground for rectification of impugned bill dated 14.11.2009 for Rs.14,090/-. The complainant is liable to pay the statutory consumption charges as per statutory contractual obligation of the consumed electricity.
28. The preparation of electricity bills showing various consumption patterns of the electricity is within the administrative domain of the OP and also the referring to the provisions of law in the correspondence is the administrative policy of the OP. We are of considered  opinion that this District Commission cannot interfere or adjudicate the administrative decisions and policy decisions of the OP.
29. On the basis of above  observation and discussion the complainant failed to establish unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of OP, therefore, present complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. File be consigned to record room.
30. On the basis of above observation and discussion present complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. File be consigned to record room.
31. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  27.03.2024.

SANJAY KUMAR                   NIPUR CHANDNA                                      RAJESH

PRESIDENT                                       MEMBER                                          MEMBER