We have heard Mr. A. Raghunath, learned counsel representing the complainant on the question of maintainability of the present complaint before this Commission.

-2-

The complainant, a body corporate constituted under the Major Port Trust Act, 1963 and having its office at Headland, Sada Goa, has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party-Electricity supply Company for disruption of power supply due to improper maintenance of supply cables for 122 hours 15 minutes between 25.6.2011 to 30.06.2011, and claimed a compensation of Rs.1,37,68,645/- alongwith interest @12% per annum for the resultant loss and damage suffered by the complainant due to alleged disruption of electricity due to improper maintenance of supply cables.

          The question for consideration is ‘whether the complainant is within its right to approach this Commission by invoking its original jurisdiction for the kind of relief which it has claimed.  The answer will depend on the answer to another question as to whether, the complainant can be said to be a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) as it stands i.e. after the Act was amended by the Amending Act No. 62 of 2002 effective from 15.3.2003.  The amended definition of ‘consumer’ as it stands after amendment reads as under:-

-3-

“(d) " consumer" means any person who,--

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose.

Explanation.-- For the purposes of this clause,"commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self- employment.

          Learned counsel for the complainant submits that services of the opposite party availed by the complainant were not for commercial purpose but were incidental to the main purpose for which the complainant-Corporation has been established and, therefore, the complainant is a ‘consumer’.  We reject this submission on a bare reading of clause (ii) of Section 2(1)(d) of the

-4-

Act because after the amendment of the definition, any person (juristic person included), who avails the services of a service provider for commercial purpose, has been taken out from the purview of the definition of ‘consumer.  Going by the facts and circumstances of the present case and assuming that the complainant would be able to establish the same one day, we are still of the view that the complainant does not fall within the ambit of the term ‘consumer’ as it stands after amendment of the definition.  We say so because the complainant had entered into a power supply agreement with the opposite party-power company for supply of electricity power to the extent of 7000 KW. for running various activities of the complainant-corporation.  The complainant-Corporation though established under a statute must be functioning on commercial basis as can be found from the charter of their activities.  We have, therefore, no manner of doubt that the complainant having availed the services of the opposite party for commercial purpose is not a consumer.  No other view is possible. 

We, therefore, hold that the complaint before this commission is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable

-5-

and is accordingly dismissed, however, liberty is granted to the complainant to work out its remedy before the appropriate court/forum, in accordance with law.