PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 04.07.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 1682/2011 – The SDO, UHBVNL, Murthal, Sonepat Vs. Delhi Public School by which, while accepting appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner was running educational institution having electricity connection from OP/respondent. Complainant was paying bill regularly, but OP demanded Rs.15,16,046/- from complainant vide memo dated 12.2.2011 by assessing multiplier of 2 whereas, it was to be assessed by multiplier of 3. Complainant approached OPs for clarification, but OP demanded aforesaid amount from August 2008. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that demand was raised rightly as meter was showing 1/3rd reading. It was further submitted that earlier calculation made by Clerk was wrong and OP was entitled to recover difference of amount and Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and set aside demand of Rs.15,16,046/-. Appeal filed by OP was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. 4. Leaned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission committed error in dismissing complaint for want of jurisdiction; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to learned State Commission. On the other hand, leaned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed. 5. It is admitted case of the parties that complainant is a public school and electric connection has been taken in the school premises. Learned State Commission held that complainant does not fall within purview of consumer in the light of judgments of this Commission reported in 2010 CTJ 886 (CP) (NCDRC) – Mohammad Haseeb Ahmad Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board & Ors. and 2010 CTJ 928 (CP) (NCDRC) – D. Ghodawat Vs. R.R.B. Energy Ltd. 6. In Mohammad Haseeb Ahmad’s case, consumer had obtained electric connection for stone crusher and in such circumstances, he was not held consumer whereas, in the case in hand, complainant is not using electricity for production of any goods; hence, aforesaid case is not applicable to the facts of the case of the complainant. In D.Ghodawat’s case, it was held that complainant cannot be held to be a consumer for availing services attached to the warranty in respect of goods purchased for commercial purposes. Facts of the aforesaid case are also not applicable to the present case. Admittedly, complainant is not generating any goods/articles by use of electric connection, but this electric connection has been obtained for the purposes of electrification in the school as well for running fans, etc. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on 1997 STPL (CL) 344 NC – Sarat Equipments Vs. Interuniversity Consortium in which it was held that : “6. On this point, the State Commission returned the finding that the Complainant had refuted the charge that fees was being charged for use of equipment. A commercial purpose envisaged profit making. The main purpose of the activity must be to generate profits by using the goods purchased. If an educational institution bought equipment for being used by the students and even if it charged certain amount of fees for allowing the equipment to be used for students, the main purpose of purchase could not be said to be commercial. It was one thing to purchase the property with the object of making profit by hiring it to others for use and it was entirely a different thing when the equipment was bought for the purpose of use of students for education and charging a certain amount to render the costs and maintenance charges for such an equipment. In the present case, the equipment was purchased for being attached to some other system purchased for the purpose of education and research, it could not be said to be a purchase for commercial purposes”. In the light of aforesaid judgment of this Commission, it becomes clear that if educational institution purchases equipments for use by the students, purchase of equipments cannot be said to be commercial even if institution charges some amount for maintenance of equipment. In the case in hand, complainant is not generating anything by use of electricity connection, but electricity connection has been taken only for the purposes of electrification of the school premises and for other facility to the students and in such circumstances, merely because it is non-domestic connection, it cannot be said that electric connection falls with purview of connection for commercial purpose. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on judgment of Apex Court in (2009) 3 SCC 240 – Karnataka Power Transmission Corpn. & Anr. Vs. Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd. in which it was held that supply of electricity by Electricity Board to a consumer is service. I agree to the principle of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court, but in this case it has nowhere been held that use of electricity by educational institution falls within purview of commercial purpose. In the aforesaid case, Company was engaged in manufacturing iron products and for that purpose electric connection was taken whereas, in the case in hand, electric connection has not been taken for production of any article and in such circumstances, aforesaid judgment does not render any help to the respondent. 9. In the light of aforesaid discussion, it becomes clear that electric connection obtained by petitioner does not fall within purview of electric connection for commercial purpose and complaint was maintainable before Consumer Fora. Learned State Commission committed error in dismissing complaint on this ground and impugned order is liable to set aside and matter is to be remanded back for disposal of appeal on merits. 10. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 04.07.2012 passed by the State Commission, in Appeal No. 1682/2011 – The SDO, UHBVNL, Murthal, Sonepat Vs. Delhi Public School is set aside and matter is remanded back to the learned State Commission to decide appeal on merits after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties and after considering complaint maintainable before Consumer Fora. 11. Parties are directed to appear before State Commission on 8.12.2014 | 
