This Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been filed by Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (“JVVNL” for short) questioning the correctness of order dated 5.10.2005, passed by Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, in Appeal No.634/20104. By the said order, the State Commission has accepted the Appeal preferred by the Respondent/Complainant and quashed the demand of Rs.7794.25 raised by the Petitioner against them on account of defective meter installed at their premises. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that in the light of the decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. vs. Anis Ahmad – (2013)8 SCC 491 – (2013)8 SCC 491, the Revision Petition deserves to be allowed. In the said decision, the Supreme Court has held as follows : “From a bare reading of section aforesaid we find that the "consumer" as defined Under Section 2(15) includes any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a licensee and also includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a licensee, irrespective of the fact whether such person is supplied with electricity for his own use or not. Per contra Under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 those who were supplied with electricity for commercial purpose and those who do not avail services for consideration, irrespective of electricity connection in their premises do not come within the meaning of "consumer".” It has thus, been held that a person who has been supplied with electricity for commercial purpose, is not a “consumer” within the meaning of Section 2(15) of the Act. As a necessary corollary, a complaint under the Act by such a person would not be maintainable. In view of the said authoritative pronouncement, the Revision Petition is allowed; the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is also dismissed. It will, however, be open to the respondent to seek redressal of their grievance by availing any other appropriate remedy, as may be available to them except a complaint under the Act. If they do so with an application for condonation of delay in taking recourse to such remedy, their application shall be considered keeping in view the observations of the Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute – 1995(3)SCC 583. The Revision Petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. | 
