PER MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

The parties were directed to address the Commission on the question as to whether the electric connection, in question, was commercial connection so as to determine whether the Complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The premises of the Complainant in which he was running a poultry farm had electric connection bearing A/c No.MS-22 with sanction load of 55 KW.  During checking of the said meter the officers of the Opposite Party found the seal on the meter cup board and CT chamber were missing. According to the Opposite Party it was a case of theft and penalty of Rs.6,00,849/-  was imposed on the Complainant.  The Complainant filed departmental appeal against the imposition of penalty and also approached the District Forum. The District Forum found that the Complainant  was running a poultry farm and was having a commercial connection at his premises.  It was also found that at  the time of checking four seals provided on MCB and CT chamber were found missing.  The District Forum held that there was no equity in favour of the Complainant and the complaint was dismissed.  The Complainant filed appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission held that once theft has been admitted, the District Forum was right in dismissing the complaint. The petitioner has come in revision against the order of the State Commission.

According to learned counsel for the petitioner the case, in question, falls under Section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act but according to Counsel for the Respondent the case is covered under Section 135 of the said Act.  Both the parties have placed reliance on judgement of this Commission and judgement of Delhi High Court.  In our opinion, we need not go into this question on account of the fact that the electric connection, in question, was for commercial purpose and the Complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The Complainant had stated in the complaint that he is running poultry farm and an electric connection bearing A/c no. MS-22  in medium supply category and the sanction load is 55 KW.  Nowhere in the complaint it was pleaded that business of poultry farm was being run for livelihood and it was not a commercial purpose.  Even in the appeal filed before the State Commission  it was no where alleged that poultry farm business was being carried out to earn livelihood  and it was not a commercial purpose.   It is only in revision filed before this Commission that the Complainant for the first time has urged that the poultry farm business was to earn  livelihood.  This plea cannot be entertained  in view of the fact that no such plea was taken either before the District Forum or before the State Commission.  In our opinion, the purpose of electric connection was a commercial purpose, namely, running of poultry farm.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the complaint, in question is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. 

In view of the above, the revision is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.