At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Complaints filed by the Respondents/Complainants, questioning the correctness of the electricity bills in the sums of Rs.80,120/- and Rs.18,876/- for the billing cycle 18.08.2006 to 18.09.2006 respectively, on the ground that they were excessive and inflated, were not maintainable.

-3-

According to the learned counsel the electricity connection having been obtained by the Respondent firm was for commercial purpose and therefore, it was not a “Consumer” as defined in Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (for short “the Act”).

               Although, Learned counsel, appearing for the Respondents, made a valiant attempt to controvert the stand of the Petitioner but having regard to the averments in the Complaints, the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner merits acceptance.  It is evident that the Respondent Firm had applied for and was granted electricity connection for running its factory in the Industrial Area of Yamuna Nagar (Haryana).

               Recently in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. vs. Anis Ahmad – (2013)8 SCC 491 the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while explaining the scope of the expression “Consumer”, as defined in the said Section, has been pleased to hold that a person availing services for commercial is not a “Consumer” and therefore, cannot be a “complainant” for the purpose of filing a complaint before the Consumer Fora under the Act.

-4-

               In the light of the said authoritative pronouncement, the Complaints filed by the Respondent were not maintainable under the Act.  Accordingly, the Revision Petitions are allowed; the impugned orders are set aside and the Complaints giving rise to these petitions are dismissed.

               It will however, be open to the Respondent to pursue an appropriate remedy, for redressal of its grievance as may be available to it in accordance with law.  No costs.