APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

PRONOUNCED ON :       MAY 2018

O R D E R

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

          This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 08.09.2016, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in RP No. 57/2016, “Divisional Engineer (Commercial), Murshidabad Region, WBSEDCL versus Samiran Kumar Das”, vide which, while allowing the said revision petition, the order dated 23.02.2016, passed by the District Forum Murshidabad, in CC No. 138/2015, filed by the present petitioner, allowing the said complaint, was set aside and the consumer complaint was ordered to be dismissed

2.       Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner Samiran Kumar Das filed complaint case No. CC/131/2015 before the District Forum, saying that he was having an electric connection No. 16569463, consumer ID No. 950026718 since 20.02.2013, provided by the Opposite Party (OP) WBSEDCL.  The said connection had been taken by him for his self-employment to earn his livelihood by establishing a Bricks field, known as the Akshay Bricks Field.  The complainant had been requesting the OP to send him the monthly bills regularly.  However, on 12.03.2015, the OP sent him a bill of ₹29,76,608/- for the period, March 2013 to March 2015, vide Memo No. 1239 dated 12.03.2015.  The complainant tried his best to know about the basis of the bill for such heavy amount, but he did not succeed in getting the information.  The OP disconnected the service line of the complainant, for which he had to suffer a huge loss.  The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking reconnection of his service line by the OP and also to pay a sum of ₹50,000/- to him as compensation for mental harassment etc. and ₹1 lakh as consequential damages.

3.       The District Forum heard the parties on the issue of maintainability of the said complaint.  The main point taken by the OP Corporation before the District Forum was that the complainant did not fall under the definition of ‘consumer’, as he had obtained an industrial connection of 59 KVA and that the complainant had employed a number of persons and labourers and hence, his operations were commercial in nature.  The District Forum held in their order that the question of maintainability of the complaint shall be decided after taking into account the evidence of both the parties at the stage of final hearing of the case.  They fixed the case for obtaining the written version of the OP.  Being aggrieved against the said order of the District Forum, the OP challenged the same by way of Revision Petition No. 57/2016 before the State Commission.  The State Commission held in their impugned order dated 08.09.2016 that the complainant did not fall under the definition of ‘consumer’ within the explanation to section 2(1)(d) of the Act.  They allowed the revision petition and set aside the order passed by the District Forum and consequently, dismissed the consumer complaint in question.  Being aggrieved against the said order of the State Commission, the complainant is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

4.       During arguments before us, it was averred by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he does fall under the category of ‘consumer’ as per section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, since the service had been availed from the OP by way of electric connection for earning livelihood by means of self-employment.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/OP stated that the complainant did not fall in the category of ‘consumer’, as he was not covered under the “explanation”, to section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Even if the electric connection was taken for earning livelihood, the complainant had nowhere explained that the activity undertaken by him was the only means of earning his livelihood.  According to the learned counsel, the connection was taken for an industrial purpose, which was clearly a commercial purpose and hence, the order passed by the State Commission was correct in the eyes of law.

5.       We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.

6.       During the course of arguments, a pointed query was made to the learned counsel for petitioner to explain, whether the activity of running Bricks field by the complainant was his only means of earning livelihood, or whether the complainant had any other source of income as well.  However, no satisfactory explanation was provided to confirm that the Bricks field was the only source of earning of livelihood of the complainant.  Moreover, it is clear that the electric connection taken from the OP is an industrial connection.  It has also been brought out in the order of the State Commission that the electric connection of the petitioner was disconnected on the allegation of theft of energy and a criminal case under section 135 (1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 had been registered against him.  Moreover, as per the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “U.P. Power Corporation and Ors. vs. Anees Ahmed” [AIR 2013 SC 2766], the consumer fora have no jurisdiction to deal with cases involving theft of electricity.

7.         In view of the discussion above, we have no reasons to differ with the well-reasoned order of the State Commission.  The said order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error of any kind and the same is ordered to be confirmed.  The present revision petition is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.