Order No: 4 Date:29/08/2024
This case record is taken up for consideration for passing order in this M.A. case which has been initiated by O.p. nos.3 to 6 on the ground that the C.C. case No.145/2019 is not maintainable in the eye of law. This matter has been contested by the O.p. of this M.A. case who is the complainant of the above noted complaint case.
The argument highlighted by Ld. Advocates of both parties has been heard in full. Considered submission.
Perused the M.A. application and the W/O filed by the O.p. of this M.A. case.
It is the main point of contention and argument of the applicants side who are the O.p. nos.3 to 6 of the above noted complaint case is that the complainant is not at all a consumer under the O.ps. and as per provision of the Electricity Act, 2003 this case is not maintainable and the complainant is intending to take electricity in the shop room (suit property for commercial purpose).
On the other hand the O.p. who is the complainant of this case pointed out that this application which has been filed by the applicants is barred by res-judicata as because similar type of application over the issue of maintainability of the above noted complaint case has been disposed of by the District Commission.
After going through the materials of the case record, this District Commission finds that the point of contention of the O.p. over the issue of res-judicata cannot be accepted in view of the decision of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs M/S Batra Agro Industries which is decided by Hon’ble State Commission Panjab and Chandigar on 12th July, 2017. In this regard the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court which is reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court page 1256 is also important.
This District Commission after going through the materials of the case record finds that the complainant who is the O.p. of the above noted complaint case is taking the electricity in the shop room and it indicates that the complainant is running the shop room for commercial purpose. In this regard, it is the settled principle of law that commercial dispute cannot be decided in summary trial under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thus, it is crystal clear that the complainant is not a consumer. This legal principle has been observed by Hon’ble Apex Court and it is reported in 2024(3) Indian Civil Cases 291 (S.C.). Moreover, as per Section 2(d) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and under Section 2(15) of the said Act the complainant is not at all coming within the definition of “Consumer”. In this regard, the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court passed in the case of Assistant Engineer, Joynagar Group Electric Supply Vs Prabhat Kumar Paul and others in connection with CO NO.428 of 2014, decided on 08/08/2023 is very important.
Thus, it is crystal clear that the complainant who is the O.p. of this M.A. case is not coming under the purview of the definition of “Consumer”. So, when the complainant is not a consumer, he has no cause of action for filing the above noted complaint case.
Thus, it is crystal clear that the complaint case no.145/2019 is found not-maintainable in the eye of law.
In view of the above noted observation of the District Commission this M.A. case No.44/2024 be and the same is allowed on contest.
It is held that the complaint case No.145/2019 is found not-maintainable and so it is liable to be dismissed.
In the light of the observation made above, this M.A. case No.44/2024 is disposed of.
Let this case record be tagged with the case record of C.C. case No.145/2019.
Dictated & corrected by me.
President
