First Appeal No. 1151 of 2010

4th August, 2011

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. V.K. RAUL
Respondent Counsel: MANEESH DIXIT

JUDGMENT

S.B. MHASE, Hon'ble President :- Heard Mr. V. K. Raul - Assistant Legal Advisor; for the Appellant/Applicant and Adv. Maneesh Dixit for the Respondent/ Non-Applicant.

2. Appeal bearing No.1151 of 2010 is directed as against an order dated 30/8/2010, passed by the South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, in Consumer Complaint No.97 of 2009. By this order, the consumer complaint was allowed and the Appellant/original Opponent is directed to issue electricity bills for the meter No.MO70148 at 62-A, Mittal Towers, 'A' Wing, 6th floor, Nariman Point Road, Mumbai - 400021 in the name of 'Ganpati Comnines Ltd.', as issued on 1/8/2008 and it should be sent at the same address as mentioned in this bill i.e. 62-A, Mittal Towers, Nariman Point Road, Mumbai - 400021. The District Forum has further directed the Appellant/original Opponent to pay amount of '3,000/- to the Respondent/original Complainant towards costs of the complaint and it is directed that compliance of the said order should be done within a period of 15 days. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum, the original Opponent, The BEST Undertaking, has preferred this appeal. The facts, which are required to be noted, are as follows:-

3. Mittal Towers are the building located in the South Mumbai and having various offices & commercial premises. It is to be noted that in the said buildings, no residential accommodations are provided and in all those towers commercial activities are carried by occupants. Out of those, electricity connection given to the premises bearing No.62-A, from the 'A' Wing, is the subject matter of the present appeal. These premises admittedly were belonging to one M/s. Kankariya Brothers, who has transferred these premises to M/s. Janapriya Finance & Investments (India) Ltd. However, the electricity meter was standing in the name of M/s. Kankariya Brothers and after M/s. Kankariya Brothers, said electricity meter should have been transferred in the name of M/s. Janapriya Finance & Investments (India) Ltd. However, it appears that M/s. Janapriya Finance & Investments (India) Ltd., has given these premises to M/s. Ganpati Commines Ltd., on rental basis and, therefore, said electricity meter was transferred in the name of M/s. Ganpati Commines Ltd., up to 1/8/2008. It appears that the dispute starts from this date because M/s. Ganpati Commines Ltd., has given these premises to M/s. M. K. International for their business premises and thereby at that juncture M/s. Janapriya Finance & Investments (India) Ltd., insisted that the electricity bills should be given in favour of M/s. Janapriya Finance & Investments (India) Ltd., and accordingly, made an application to the Appellant/ original Opponent. Having found that M/s. Janapriya Finance & Investments (India) Ltd., is the owner of the said premises, after its satisfaction, the Appellant/original Opponent transferred the electricity meter in the name of M/s. Janapriya Finance & Investments (India) Ltd., and issued electricity bills in the name of M/s. Janapriya Finance & Investments (India) Ltd. Being aggrieved by the act on the part of the Appellant/original Opponent, M/s. M. K. International has filed this consumer complaint before the District Forum making a prayer that the Appellant/original Opponent may be directed to rectify their mistake and generate the bill in the name of M/s. Ganapati Comines, as generated earlier. It is the case of M/s. M. K. International that it is a sister concern of M/s. Ganpati Comnines Ltd., and therefore, M/s. M. K. International is entitled to occupy the said premises and it shall pay the electricity bills to the Appellant/original Opponent, which are issued in the name of M/s. Ganapati Comnines Ltd. M/s. M. K. International objected for tendering of electricity bills in the name of M/s. Janapriya Finance & Investments (India) Ltd. In these circumstances, consumer complaint has been filed and it has been allowed, as stated above. What is interesting to be noted is that these premises are commercial premises. Electricity connection, which is being used, is a commercial connection and not a residential connection. Admittedly, either M/s. Ganapati Comnines Ltd., and/or M/s. M. K. International, both are using the said electricity connection for 'commercial purpose'. What is to be noted is that even though we assume the contention of M/s. M. K. International that M/s. M. K. International and M/s. Ganapati Comnines Ltd., are the sister concerns, under law, both the concerns are separately registered under the Companies Act and they are separate corporate bodies. Their persons in the management may be the same but in law they are separate concerns in view of separate registration and they are separate legal persons. This requires to be mentioned because even though there may be some relationship between M/s. Janapriya Finance & Investments (India) Ltd., and M/s. Ganapati Comnines Ltd., there is no contractual relationship between M/s. M. K. International and M/s. Janapriya Finance & Investments (India) Ltd., who was the original owner of the said premises. What is important to be noted is that the electricity connection was initially given to the erstwhile owner, by name - M/s. Kankariya Brothers and, therefore, it is natural it is transferred in the name of the subsequent owner, by name - M/s. Janapriya Finance & Investments (India) Ltd., who has subsequently given these premises to M/s. Ganpati Commines Ltd., on rental basis. Therefore, so far as M/s. M. K. International and M/s. Janapriya Finance & Investments (India) Ltd., is concerned, there is no sort of contractual relationship so far as electricity meter is concerned. What we find is that this is a factual analysis of the relationship between the parties. However, the basic question which requires to be considered is as to whether M/s. M. K. International is a 'consumer' or not as against the present Appellant/original Opponent. It is to be noted that M/s. M. K. International never applied for an electricity connection in its name. M/s. M. K. International never availed any service for consideration from the Appellant/original Opponent. There is no contractual relationship between M/s. M. K. International and the Appellant/original Opponent till today. What-ever relationship the Appellant/original Opponent is having is with M/s. Ganpati Comnines Ltd., and therefore, M/s. M. K. International cannot ask for the relief that the Appellant/original Opponent may be directed to generate and issue the electricity bills in the name of M/s. Ganpati Comines Ltd. In fact, it is M/s. Ganapati Comines, who should have come forward to file a consumer complaint and not M/s. M. K. International. There is one more angle to this. All these premises are commercial premises and a complaint in respect of commercial premises cannot be entertained by a District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in view of definition of the term - 'consumer', as defined under Section-2(1)(d) of the said Act. Admittedly, all these are corporate companies carrying out their respective businesses for earning profits and, therefore, there is no question of earning livelihood by means of self-employment. Therefore, the corporate companies carrying on business and using said premises for their business cannot be said to be a 'consumer' covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. These objects, even though raised before the District Forum, were no considered properly by the District Forum. In fact, the consumer complaint itself is not tenable. The consumer complaint was wrongly entertained and erroneously allowed. Therefore, we allow the present appeal and quash and set aside the order dated 30/8/2011 passed by the South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Consumer Complaint No.97 of 2009. Consequently, the consumer complaint stands dismissed. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

Appeal allowed.