RESERVED
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW
COMPLAINT NO. 31 OF 2018
- Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Through the General Manager Telecom
Targhar Building, Opposite H.P.O.
Sultanpur-228001
- The Assistant General Manager (A&P)
O/o General Manager Telecom
Targhar Building, Opposite H.P.O.
Sultanpur-228001
...Complainants
Vs.
- Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.
Lucknow
Through its Chairman
- The Executive Engineer
Elecricity Distribution Division-First
Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam
Sultanpur-228001
...Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT
For the Complainant : Sri Sunil Sharma, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party :
Dated : 31-01-2018
ORDER
PER MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT
This is a complaint filed before State Commission under Section-17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
I have heard learned Counsel for the complainants on maintainability of complaint under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and its Assistant General Manager have filed complaint against opposite parties namely Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Executive Engineer, Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Sultanpur for redressal of grievance arising out of electric bills issued by opposite parties for electricity consumed by
:2:
complainant Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited.
In paragraph 1 of complaint it has been stated that the complainant No.1 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited is a Corporation of Government of India and is engaged in providing telecom services in the entire country.
Paragraph 3 of complaint says that opposite parties had provided electric connection No. 999938 in the main telephone exchange of complainant at Sultanpur. Sanctioned load of connection is 250 KVA in 11KV HV-2 category.
In complaint it has not been stated that the electric connection in question has been obtained for office or residential accommodation to provide light, fan and other amenities to employees. Paragraph 3 of complaint clearly says that the connection has been provided in the main telephone exchange and sanctioned load of connection is 250 KVA. Thus it is apparent that the connection has been obtained by complainants for running telephone exchange and there is no averment in complaint to the effect that complainant Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited is providing free telecom services. Complainant Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited is providing telecom services for consideration. As such Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited is carrying a commercial activity and is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Learned Counsel for the complainants has referred judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Bunga Daniel Babu V/s Sri Vasudeva Constructions and others reprted in (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 429 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered the question as to what is a commercial purpose and has held that the question as to what is a commercial purpose is a question of fact to be decided on the facts of each case. Honourable Apex Court has further held that it is not the value of the goods that matters but the purpose to which the goods bought are put to.
In view of above proposition laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court it obvious that the question as to what is a commercial purpose is a question of fact to be decided on the facts of the case and in view of discussion made above the facts disclosed in complaint clearly show that electric connection in question has been taken by complainant for commercial purpose and the
:3:
complainant is not a consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
In view of above I am of the view that the complaint filed by complainant is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to avail other remedies available under the law.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties within 15 days positively as per rules.
( JUSTICE A H KHAN )
PRESIDENT
pnt
