The complainant  Smt.  Nutan Devi  has filed this complaint petition against Executive Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board  Maripur Muzaffarpur and one another for cancellation  of Bill of Rs. 97,492/- and for order of  reconnection of electricity  line of the complainant. 

The brief, facts of the case is that the  complainant  was running a flour mill for its livelihood but the o.ps after conspiring to each  other, started to send wrong  electricity bill and lastly  on 10-01-2004, they disconnected the electricity line of the complainant for arrear of Rs. 3,64,287/-. The further case is that after disconnection the billing  of Electricity Department  was continued.  Lastly they  send Rs. 97,492/- on 25-02-2005 whereas their demand was of Rs. 4,73,702/-

 The complainant  has annexed the  following document with the complaint petition annexure 1 to 6 photocopies of  electricity bill and revised bill, photocopies of agreement papers annexure-7.

On issuance of notices,  o.p appeared and filed their w.s. on 27-04-2005 with prayer to dismiss the complaint petition with cost. It has been mentioned in the w.s. that the complaint petition of the complainant is time barred so the same is liableto be dismissed. It has been further mentioned that the complainant  is commercial consumer and she run flour mill and sales flour so she does not come under the meaning of Consumer ‘as defined u/s—2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. It has been further mentioned that with the complaint petition  annexure-7 in the name of Poonam Devi  has been annexed and the same bill   is of  Rs. 97,492/-. It has been further mentioned that she has filed wrong  bill  to show  in the case, hence  the  same  is liable  to be dismissed on the above ground.

The o.ps have raised two questions in  their w.s. First question is as to whether  the complainant  is consumer within the meaning of  section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act? The complainant has stated in very beginning  of complaint petition that she is running flour mill for  earning  her livelihood, on the other hand  o.ps have raised the question that she sales flour,  the product  of flour mill. The o.ps have not adduced any evidence  on the point that she   sells flour for business purpose. The complainant  is running flour mill for her livelihood, so she comes under the purview  of section  2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act.

Second  question is as to  whether the bill which is the basis of the complaint petition i.e corrected  bill (annexure-6) is the bill of complainant  or  of another person namely Poonam Devi. On perusal of the record, it transpires  that the complainant  has annexed photocopy of revised bill as annexure-6 . On perusal of the same it transpires that the aforesaid bill is in the name of Smt. Poonam Devi whereas   the complainant is  Nutan Devi. The bill is of the  Rs. 97,492/- which is the  basis of the suit.  Annexure-6,  is not in the name of complainant,  so this complaint petition  is not maintainable due to devoid of basis of the suit.

 On the basis of above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that this complaint petition is not maintainable and  is liable to be dismissed.

In the circumstances, the complaint petition is dismissed.