O R D E R (24th February 2011) HON'BLE MEMBER : SMT. JYOTI IYER 1. Today at the time of Admission of the above mentioned matter before us the first and foremost question which arose is whether the Complainant is a “Consumer” within meaning of Sec 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 after the amendment of the said section w.e.f 15/03/2003 excluding any person who purchased the goods for resale and/or hired the services for commercial purpose from the ambit of the said definition of the term “Consumer”. We queried the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant to enlighten us on the aspect that how the Complainant is a “Consumer” within section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as he is using electricity provided by the Opposite Parties for running his power loom business. We heard the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant at length, perused the record. From the averments made in the Complaint in para no. 8 it appears that the Complainant is consuming electricity for conducting his power loom business. It is the contention of the Complainant that he has not exceeded the sanctioned load of 25HP for the power looms by the above named Opposite Parties and the tariff payable by the Complainant is Rs.93,523.63 as per Rs.3.00 per unit as per the Government Rules and Regulations for consumers consuming below 27HP/20KW and that the Opposite Parties have wrongly billed the Complainant to the tune of Rs. 1,45,498.63 by pushing him in the category of 27 HP/20 KW sanctioned load. It is pertinent to note that section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 has been amended w.e.f 15/03/2003 which excludes any person who buys ... 2 ... (Com. no. 452/2010) goods for resale or any person hires/avails services, though for consideration which are used for “Commercial Purposes”. The said person cannot be termed as a “Consumer” within ambit of section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act in view of the said amendment.
2. In the Instant case in hand it appears that Complainant is in business as stated in the cause title of the complaint and from the averments in the Complaint it is stated that the Complainant is using the services of the Opposite Parties i.e supply of electricity for conducting his power loom business. Therefore it can be safely concluded that the Complainant has availed/hired the services of the Opposite Parties for Commercial Purposes. Hence in view of the aforementioned amendment in section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 the present Complaint is not maintainable before us. Further it is also pertinent to note that as per para no. 16 of his complaint the Complainant on his own saying has stated that he has filed a regular Civil Suit bearing no. 231/2010 before the Ld. C.J.J.D at Bhiwandi on the same subject matter prior to filing this present complaint which is pending. Since the present complaint filed before us has failed on the above referred ground of commercial purpose itself, we do not feel the need to go in to the other contentions raised by the Complainant.
3. In view of the above discussion the present complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. The Complainant is however, at liberty to seek the reliefs sought before us in the above suit and or filed appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forums. We further make it clear that the time spent in prosecuting the present complaint before us would be excluded for the purpose of limitation. Hence the following order- Order 1. Complaint no. 452/2010 is dismissed at the stage of Admission itself 2. No order as to cost 3. Copies of this order to be sent to both the parties free of cost.
THANE DATE : 24/02/2011 (JYOTI IYER) (M.G.RAHATGAONKAR) MEMBER PRESIDENT
| | [HONABLE MRS. Jyoti Iyyer] MEMBER[HONABLE MR. M.G. RAHATGAONKAR] PRESIDENT | | 
