ORDER Complainant/petitioner had taken two electric connections, one bearing No.TMO7/4120 for his residential premises and another for running the Atta Chakki bearing No.TIS-UP41/0006. On 23rd August, 2006 at about 2.10 p.m. the premises of the petitioner were checked by the respondent. During checking complainant was found committing theft of electricity through a 30 BHP motor for running a tubewell and taking it a case of theft the opposite party/respondent imposed a penalty of Rs.1,89,189/- vide memo No.2786 dated 23.8.2006. -2- Aggrieved by this, petitioner filed the complaint alleging that the electric connection bearing No. TIS-UP41/0006 obtained by him for running Atta Chakki had been got discontinued. District Forum allowed the complaint and quashed the demand created by the respondent of Rs.1,34,508/-. Respondent being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission. State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint by observing thus: - The perusal of the written reply filed by the appellant opposite parties reveals that the preliminary objection taken by the Ops was not considered by the learned District Consumer Forum at the time of disposal of the present complaint. The first preliminary objection was that complainant is not the Consumer on the date of checking i.e. 23.8.2006 because it was specifically mentioned by the appellant opposite parties in para no.2 of its written statement that electricity connection bearing Account No.TIS-UP41/0006 was permanently disconnected on 8.4.2005 vide PDCO No.37/2405. However the present complaint was filed on 13.9.2006 challenging the memo No.2786 dated 23.8.2006. To rebut the plea taken by the opposite parties the comoplainant has failed to place on record an iota of evidence in support of averments made in the complaint. It is well settled principle of law that mere pleadings without any proof cannot be taken as to be true. In this view of the matter and the facts discussed above, we have the considered opinion that on the date of alleged checking the complainant was not the consumer of -3- the appellant opposite parties in respect of electricity connection in question. As such, the District Forum has not considered the actual and factual position on record and committed grave error while accepting the complaint. Thus, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.” State Commission in its order has held that the petitioner has filed to prove that he has got his Atta Chakki connection disconnected. Counsel for the petitioner during the course of submissions before us admitted that the petitioner had not got the Atta Chakki connection disconnected but discontinued the use of it. Discontinuation of use of the connection and getting the disconnected are two different things. Since the petitioner had obtained the electric connection for a commercial purpose, he did not fall in the definition of the ‘Consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The State Commission rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a consumer and, therefore, the complaint filed by him was not maintainable. Dismissed. | 
