Aggrieved by the order dated 30.09.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. 1692/2006, the original complainant has filed the present petition purportedly under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal before the State Commission was filed by UHBVNL against the order dated 21.04.2006 passed by the District Forum Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri in CC No. 540 of 2003, where the dispute was with regard to a bill of Rs.1,55,900/-, raised by the said electricity supply company against the petitioner. The District Forum had allowed the complaint and quashed the said bill. But in appeal the State Commission has reversed the said findings and dismissed the complaint primarily on the ground that the complainant was not a onsumerwithin the meaning of section 2(1) (d) of the Act, and so could not invoke the jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora for the Redressal of his grievance because he was running an ice factory and had availed the services of the opposite party electricity company for commercial use / purpose. In support of its finding, the State Commission has relied upon the decision of Honle Supreme Court in irla Technologies Ltd. Vs. Neutral Glass and Allied Industries Ltd.[2011 (1) CPR 1 (SC)], decision of this Commission in the case of ohammad Haseeb Ahmad Versus Maharashtra State Electricity Board & Ors.[2010 CTJ 886 (CP) (CCDRC)], and decision of A.P. State Commission in /s. Shree Manufacturing Company Limited Versus A.P. State Electricity Board & Anr.[II (1993) CPJ 874)]. 2. Counsel for the petitioner would assail the impugned order primarily on the ground that the same is not based on correct and proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence and material brought on record. In particular he has pointed out that the State Commission has decided the appeal assuming that the cause of action to file the complaint had arisen in favour of the complainant post-amendment, i.e., after the amendment of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Amending Act 62 of 2002 which was brought into force with effect from 15.03.2003. He submits that the bill in question which was sought to be quashed pertained to the year 2001 and the arrears sought to be recovered pertained to the period prior to 1994 etc. Counsel for the petitioner submits that even the earlier bill raised in 1994 was quashed in an earlier complaint filed by the petitioner. 3. We have not the advantage of hearing the say of the respondent who remained unrepresented on record despite due service of notice. The submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the complaint related to a cause of action which had arisen in favour of the petitioner / complainant prior to the amendment of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by amending Act, 62 of 2002 has merit and, therefore, the State Commission has erred in taking the view it has taken by relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court and this Commission which related to the post-amendment period. 4. The revision petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order passed by the State Commission is set aside. Since the appeal filed by the UHBVNL has not been answered on merits, we remit the appeal to the Board of the State Commission for deciding the same afresh on merits. It will not be open for the respondent to raise the question that the petitioner is not a onsumer Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 29.10.2012 for further directions.