(24^th February 2011)

HON'BLE MEMBER : SMT. JYOTI IYER

1. Today at the time of Admission of the above mentioned matter before us the 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. we queried the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant to enlighten as on aspect that how the Complainant is a Consumer within section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as he is using electricity provided by the Opponents 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 the relevant contents of the said para are reproduced hereunder-

8. “The Complainant submits that the electricity load of 10.00 hps was initially sanctioned by the then Maharashtra State Electricity Board in respect of the said meter. It is further submitted that than again somewhere in the month of June -99 the loan was extended to 31HP on the survey of the electrical supervisor who found that the consumer was running 30 looms and 1 prin winding machine.” It appears that the Complainant is consuming electricity for conducting his power loom business. 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 goods for resale and any person hiring 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 ... (Com. No. 453/2010)

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 as afore reproduced and is using the services of the Opposite Parties for commercial purpose i.e using electricity services for conducting his power loom business. Hence in view of the above discussion it can be safely concluded that the Complainant has availed/hired the services of the Opposite Parties for Commercial Purposes. Therefore we are of the view that the present Complaint is not maintainable before us. Since the present complaint filed before us cannot be sustained on the above referred ground itself we do not feel the need to go into the other contentions raised by the Complainant. However the Complainant is at liberty to file appropriate proceeding before the appropriate forum. 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. 453/2010 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