JUSTICE V.K. JAIN (ORAL) The complainant is the tenant of one Akram Khan who had taken a 12 HP connection from the respondent Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Meter No.8516569 was installed by the respondent for supplying electricity against the aforesaid connection. The electricity against from the aforesaid connection, however, was being consumed by the complainant/petitioner. The respondent, based upon the inspection report dated 4.2.2012, raised a demand of Rs.1,79,468/- in the name of Akram Khan. Being aggrieved from the said demand, the petitioner/complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint alleging that he had never used more than the sanctioned load. 2. The complaint was resisted by the respondent which interalia stated that during an inspection carried out on 4.12.2012 by its official, it was found that another meter bearing No.7408034 had been installed at the premises and the electricity was being consumed through the aforesaid illegally installed meter. According to the respondent, the petitioner/complainant was found using as much as 13.084 kw of electricity, at the time of checking and pursuant to the aforesaid inspection, penalty of Rs.1,79,468/- was imposed upon the registered consumer. The respondent also filed the assessment details whereby an amount of Rs.1,79,468/- was worked out. 3. The District Forum vide its order dated 5.7.2013 allowed the complaint and set aside the demand. 4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the respondent approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 2.7.2016, the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and consequently dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved, the petitioner/complainant is before this Commission by way of this revision petition. 5. The first question which arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the petitioner/complainant is a consumer of the respondent as defined in section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The aforesaid provision, to the extent it is relevant, provides that the term consumer does not include a person who hires or avails the services for a commercial purpose. A perusal of the inspection report shows that at the time of inspection, welding machine, drill machine, grinder, cutter, etc. were found installed. Obviously the electricity was being consumed for a commercial purpose. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant states that the petitioner/complainant was using electricity for the purpose of earning his livelihood by way of self-employment. However, no such averment is found in the complaint. In the absence of any such averment in the complaint, an oral contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant cannot be entertained. For this reason alone, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 7. On merits also, I find no good reason to interfere with the impugned order. The inspection of the premises was carried out by the officers of the respondent Nigam in discharge of their official duties. The petitioner/complainant has not alleged any personal animosity on the part of the officers of the respondent Nigam. They could have no possible reason to prepare a false report alleging installation of two meters at the premises occupied by the petitioner/complainant. Even otherwise the correctness or otherwise of such an inspection report cannot be decided in a consumer complaint adopting a summary procedure. If the petitioner/complainant wanted to assail the correctness of the inspection report, he ought to have approached a civil court for its grievance and a consumer forum was not an appropriate for the redressal of such a grievance. 8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no merit in the revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. It is, however, made clear that dismissal of the complaint will not come in the way of the petitioner/complainant approaching a civil court for the redressal of his grievances. | 
