JUDGMENT
Per : J. L. DESHPANDE, PRESIDENT
The opponent is company supplying electricity to its consumer. The complaint is in possession of premises owned by Mr. Mulchand Jain and the complainant obtained live & license agreement from said Mr. Mulchand Jain in March- 2008 and since then the complainant is running video game parlor in the said premises. The opponent has installed electricity meter in the said premises.
It is the case of complainant that officers of the opponent visited complainant Premises on 05/04/2008 and submitted report that the meter was tampered and was running slow. The opponent there after served provisional assessment order dt.10/04/2008. The Complainant ties to participate in the proceedings but he was not allowed. The opponents demanded sum of Rs.86, 072.17 from the complainant as arrears of electricity bill. According to the Complainant his demand is illegal & arbitrary and the opponents are likely to disconnect electricity supply to the premise of the complainant. The complainant served legal notice and then filed present complaint making allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the opponent and direction not to disconnect electricity supply to the complainant’s electricity meter as well as compensation in sum of Rs.50, 000/-
The opponent contested the complainant by filing written version of defence and took stand that this Forum has no jurisdiction in view of the provisions contained in Electricity Act-2002. Opponent also submitted that the vigilance squad found that meter was tampered and it was running slow. Then provisional Assessment order dated 10/04/2008 was passed. Despite notices the Complainant did not appear and final assessment order was passed against him on 02/06/2008 asking complainant to pay sum of Rs.86, 072.17/-.
Both the sides filed their affidavit of evidence & documents. Both the side also filed written Notes of arguments.
In the written notes of arguments opponent raised the contention that, the complainant is using premises for commercial purposes and this Forum has no Jurisdiction to try the complaint.
We have gone through pleadings, affidavits, documents and written notes of arguments. We have heard learned advocates of both the sides. Following points arise for our consideration:
Points | Findings |
1) Whether complainant is consumer u/s. 2(1) (d) of C.P. Act and Consumer Forum has Jurisdiction to try present Complaint? | No |
2) What Order | Complaint Dismissed |
Reasons
In the written version of defence the opponents submitted that this forum has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint. In the written notes of arguments the opponent further elaborated this point & contended that the complainant is taking the supply of electricity for commercial purpose i.e. video game parlour and thus, he is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
In this context the complainant in the complaint itself admitted that he is running video parlour in the name & style of “Sai Shraddha” in the said premises. The Electricity bills issued by the Opponent also show that assessment was made on commercial tariff basis. Thus there is no dispute that the premises are being used for commercial purposes. Supply of electricity by opponent to the complainant premises is a service defined in Section 2 (1) (O) of Consumer Protection Act. Obviously electricity supply was taken as facility to run the business of Video Parlour. Thus, this service also becomes service for commercial purpose.
According to the provisions contained in Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, When goods are purchased or services availed for commercial purposes then person purchasing such goods or availing service does not become consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act.
In this context we rely upon Judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Hotel Corporation of India V/s. Delhi Electricity Board (Consumer Law Cases 200-2008) page 177. In that case Hon’ble National Commission held that supply of electricity was taken by hotel for running its business and thus it was for commercial purpose and dismissed the complaint. Ratio of that case is applicable to present case.
Recently Supreme Court in the Case of Birla Technology Ltd, V/s. Natural Glass & Allied Industries Ltd. 2011CTJ 121 Supreme Court (CP) has held that if the goods are purchased for the commercial purpose for earning more profits then there can be no dispute that services offered along with them have to be for the same purpose.
There is nexus between running of Video Game Parlour and taking of electricity because the complainant was not residing there or doing any other activity but he was running video game parlour, which is patently commercial activity.
It be noted that the complainant nowhere alleged that he was running that activity for self-employment or earning his livelihood.
Even otherwise on facts the complainant did not participate in the proceedings before the opponents after the provisional order was passed and he has not specifically challenged the final assessment order dt. 02/06/2008, copy of which was pro0duced by opponent along with the written statement.
In view of the above reasoning we uphold contention of the opponent that the complainant is not consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1) (d) of C.P. Act and this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the complaint.
Hence, we proceed to pass following Order:-
-:ORDER:-
Complaint stands dismissed. No order as to cost.
