The case is posted today for hearing. Advocate for the complainant is absent, no steps filed. Advocate for the O.Ps is present & files hazira. On repeated calls, none respond on behalf of the complainant. Hence, hearing of the case could not be taken up. Perused the case record.

                                         The case of the complainant, in short, is that he has availed two electric supply, one for domestic bearing No.B-10-0117 and another for commercial bearing No.B-10-0111 since 1998-99 and has been paying electricity dues regularly without any arrear outstanding against him. One single phase service connection up to 3.00 KW load was supplied by the Ops on 6.5.1998 to the commercial unit of the complainant namely SHARMA INDUSTRIES situated at Sunhat. The matter relates to 14 years back. On perusal of some of the receipts, the complainant found that a sum of Rs.19,699.85 paisa remained outstanding reflecting in Bill No.115 dated 21.3.2000, which was subsequently revised to Rs.8,201/-. But the present outstanding dues stands at Rs.1,85,000/- and for non-payment of dues, power supply to his unit was disconnected since the year 2000. The complainant filed one C.D. Case No.17 of 2004 and Misc Case No.4/2001 and the matter went to the Hon’ble State Commission, where order was passed in Revision Case No.8 of 2004 allowing the interim prayer with a direction to restore the power supply on deposit of Rs.2,000/- and after a month, again the Ops disconnected the power supply. But, as on the date, the Ops claimed that a sum of Rs.1,85,000/- is outstanding against the complainant. Further, the bill has been prepared by assessing 11.00 KW. When the Ops have disconnected the power supply to his unit in the year 2000, claiming of the aforesaid amount, that too assessing 11.00 KW, is exaggerated. For the above reason, the complainant visited the office of the Ops time and again, but in vain. Now the commercial unit of the complainant does not exist nor had the complainant ever approached the Ops for restoration of the power supply. Thus, the claim of the Ops for Rs.1,85,000/- is unjust and illegal which otherwise shows deficiency in service. Hence, this case.

                                         In the present case, the Ops have appeared and filed their joint written version challenging the maintainability of the case and cause of action for filing the case. They have stated, inter alia, that the complainant in the present case is a commercial consumer and thus, the complainant is not a consumer before this Commission. The complainant has suppressed the material facts with regard to the exact nature of dispute. The dispute as agitated by the complainant is not coming under the scope and ambit of the Act. The complainant is a defaulter and not paying the electric dues in tile for which huge outstanding energy dues has been accumulated against him. From the document, it came to light that power supply to the premises of the complainant was disconnected in the month of August, 2006 and billing has also been stopped, but outstanding energy dues up to July, 2006 for a sum of Rs.1,81,510.90 paisa was not paid by him. That apart, the complainant, if aggrieved with the aforesaid billing matter, he should have approached the appropriate forum for redressal and not before this Commission. Hence, it is prayed that the complaint of the complainant may be dismissed with cost.

                                         As it is seen from the case record that the complainant remained absent since long nor has taken any step. However, taking into consideration the complaint petition and the documents produced on behalf of the complainant as well as the written version, the Commission is constrained to pass the order on merit. 

                                         On perusal of the pleadings and documents filed on behalf of the complainant, it is made out that the complainant has filed the present case basing on the energy bill for July, 2000. On perusal of the Annexure-1 to 6, it is found that the complainant is a commercial consumer under the Ops. Thus, it is held that the complainant is running a commercial unit in his premises to earn profits falls under the term “for commercial purpose”. Therefore, the complainant is not covered under the expression “Consumer” as defined under Section 2(1) (d) of the Act, 1986. Consequently, the complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of the Act, 1986. Consequently, the case is liable to be dismissed. 

                                         Accordingly, the case of the complainant is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps without any cost.