KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. APPEAL No. 638/09 JUDGMENT DATED: 09-12-2009 PRESENT: SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER APPELLANT M. Abdul Asim, Proprietor, Furniture Plus, P.O. Road, Thrissur. (Rep. by Adv. Sri. A.Y. Khalid & Sri. P. Raj Mohan) Vs RESPONDENTS 1. The Assistant Engineer, EW2, Electricity Department, Thrissur Corporation. 2. The Assistant Secretary, Electricity Department, Thrissur Corporation. 3. Thrissur Corporation, Represented by its Secretary. JUDGMENT SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 22nd July 2009 passed by the CDRF, Thrissur in CC No. 475/06. The complaint therein was filed by the appellant (complainant) against the respondents (opposite parties) alleging deficiency in service in issuing P1 demand notice dated 07-06-2006 for Rs. 1,17,490/- by way of arrears of electricity charges. The complainant prayed for cancellation of the P1 demand notice dated 07-06-2006. The respondents/opposite parties entered appearance and contended that the complainant is not a consumer coming within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that the complaint in CC No. 475/2006 is not maintainable. It is further contended that there was no deficiency in service in issuing P1 demand notice; that the said demand was made based on the consumption of energy by the complainant. It is also contended that the claim is not barred by limitation. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 2. Before the Forum below, Ext. P1 to P3 documents were produced and marked from the side of the complainant. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order finding that the complainant is not a consumer coming within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence the complaint was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is preferred. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant argued for admitting the appeal and to issue notice to the opposite parties. He vehemently argued for the position that the complainant is a consumer as defined u/s 2(1(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that the complainant is entitled for the benefit of the explanation to Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is further submitted that the appellant/complainant is running the business exclusively for earning his livelihood by means of self employment and is to be treated as a consumer as defined u/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thus, the appellant prayed for admitting the appeal preferred from the order passed by the Forum below in CC No. 475/06. 4. Admittedly, the appellant/complainant is running a business by name ‘Furniture Plus’. There can be no doubt about the fact that the appellant/complainant availed the service of the opposite parties for getting supply of electrical energy to his business establishment by name ‘Furniture Plus’. If that be so, it can be concluded that the appellant/complainant availed the service of the opposite parties for commercial purpose. It is a settled position that a person who availed service for commercial purpose cannot be treated as a consumer as defined u/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 5. The definite case of the appellant/complainant is that he is running the business exclusively for earning his livelihood. It is to be noted that the appellant/complainant had no case in CC 475/06 to the effect that he is running the business or conducting the business exclusively for earning his livelihood by means of self employment. There is no case for the complainant that he is conducting the business by name ‘Furniture Plus’ by means of self employment. 6. The explanation to Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is as follows: “Explanation – for the purposes of this clause, ‘commercial purpose’ does not include use by a person of goods, bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self employment”. The aforesaid wordings to the said explanation would make it clear that the said explanation is in the form of an exception. In order to get the said exception the person who availed the services for commercial purpose must use or avail the said service exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. In the present case on hand, the appellant/complainant has no case that he has been conducting the said business under self employment. If that be so, the Forum below has rightly held that the complainant is not a consumer as defined u/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 7. The appellant/complainant much relied on Ext.P2 certificate of registration issued by Sales Tax Authority. But that certificate of registration would not show that the appellant/complainant is conducting the furniture business exclusively for earning his livelihood by means of self employment. In effect the appellant/complainant has not adduced any evidence to substantiate his case that he is conducting the business by name ‘Furniture Plus’ exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. If that be so, the appellant/complainant is not entitled to get the benefit under the explanation to Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The available materials on record would only show that the appellant/complainant availed the services of the opposite party for commercial purpose. Then, the dispute involved in CC 475/06 cannot be considered as a consumer dispute. The Forum below is not having the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in CC 475/06. The appellant/complainant will be at liberty to approach Civil Court or any other authority for getting his grievances redressed. The Forum below rightly dismissed the complaint in CC 475/06 as the Forum below lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. If that be the position, the present appeal deserves dismissal at this admission stage itself. In the result, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Sr. | 
