Per Mr B A Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member

1.      This appeal is filed by the original complainant; feeling aggrieved by an order dtd.28.04.2014, passed by District Consumer Forum, Buldhana, by which the consumer complaint bearing No. CC/212/2011 has been dismissed on the sole ground that the complainant does not fall within the definition of “consumer” given under Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.      Advocate Mr Chichbankar is present for the appellant and we have heard him finally today.  No one for respondent is present today to make oral submission.

3.      However, advocate Smt P R Moharir already filed Written Notes of Arguments for the respondent, which we have considered as her oral submission.  We have perused the entire record & proceedings of the appeal. 

4.      The learned advocate of the appellant submitted that the Forum below erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that the complaint does not fall within the definition of “consumer.  He further submitted that electric connection was not obtained from the respondent by the appellant for any manufacturing purpose, but it was obtained only for facilitating the business in the shop of the appellant, which is called as sweet mart.  He also relied on the decisions in the following cases in support of his submission.

a.      Karnataka Power Transmission Corpn. & Anr. Vs. Ashok Iron Works Pvt Ltd., 2009(2) Scale (SC).

b.      Harsolia Motors Vs. National Insurance Co Ltd., Landmark Judgements on Consumer Protection 130 (NCDRC)

c.       Thrissur Corpn. & Anr. Vs. E.B. Shaji, I(2009) CPJ 99 KSDRC (Thiruvananthpuram)

d.      Ramesh Kr Rohilla Vs. M/s North Delhi Power Ltd., in FA No.272/2011, decided on 17.02.2014 by SCDRC, Delhi.

e.      T O Lonappan, Proprietor Vs. Asstt. Enginer, in appeal No.393/2012, decided on 23.06.2012 by KSCDRC, Thiruvananthapuram.

f.       Sri Ismail  Khan Shamsheer Vs. The Chairman & Managing Director, in FA No.980/2013, decided on 20.10.2014 by APSCDRC, Hyderabad.

g.      The Asstt. Secretary Vs. Dinesh P S, in Appeal No. 574/12, decided on 27.06.2013 by KSCDRC, Thiruvananthapuram.

h.      Jai Bhagwan Vs. North Delhi Power Ltd., in FA No. 11/539, decided on 31.01.2012 by SCDRC, Delhi.

i.        Jindal Drilling and Industries Ltd Vs. Indocon Engineers Pvt Ltd & Anr., SC & National Commission Consumer Law Cases (2005-2008) 123.

j.        East India Construction Co & Anr. Vs. Modern Consultancy Services & Ors., SC & National Commission Consumer Law Cases (2005-2008)  605.

k.       Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd & Ors Vs. Ramjilal Gupta, SC & National Commission Consumer Law Cases (2005-2008) 630.

l.        Controls & Switchgear Co Ltd Vs. Daimlerchrysler India Pvt., SC & National Commission Consumer Law Cases (2005-2008) 312.

m.     Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute, (1995) 3 Supreme Court Cases 583.

5.      The appellant’s advocate also filed documents for the first time in appeal to show that the appellant was running the shop for maintenance of his livelihood by way of self employment. The learned advocate of the appellant further submitted that as electric connection was not obtained purely for commercial purpose, the impugned order may be set aside and complaint may be remanded for deciding it on merits in accordance with law.

6.      The learned advocate of the respondent in her Written Notes of Arguments filed in appeal supported the impugned order and

submitted that the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

7.      We find that there is no close nexus in between the electric connection taken by the appellant and the commercial activity carried out by appellant in sweet mart shop. The appellant is running that shop called as Sweet Mart for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. Therefore, we find that the complainant is a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

8.      Thus, our observation is restricted only as regards the maintainability of the complaint filed before the Forum. Hence, we hold that the Forum below erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that it is not maintainable before the Forum below.

9.      The impugned order needs to be set aside and complaint deserves to be remanded to the Forum below for deciding it on merits in accordance with law.

          Hence, the following order is passed.

ORDER

i.        The appeal is partly allowed as under

a.      The impugned order is set aside and the complaint is remanded to District Consumer Forum, Buldhana for deciding it on merits in accordance with law.

b.      Both parties shall appear before the Forum below on 22.11.2018.

c.       If the opposite party / respondent herein does not appear on that date before the Forum below, then notice of the complaint after remand be served by the District Consumer Forum, Buldhana to the opposite party / respondent and then it shall proceed with the complaint in accordance with law.

ii.       No order as to costs in this appeal.

iii.      Copy of the order be furnished to both parties free of cost and its one copy be forwarded to District Consumer Forum, Buldhana, for information.