SRI.R. VIJAYAKUMAR, MEMBER. This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act The case of the complainant is that the Tariff of the Electic connection converted to LT VI[c] from Lt 1 [a] Arbitrarily by the opp.party. He had served with an exorbitant invoice dt. 28.9.2007 for Rs.14,359/- The act of opp.parties unjustifiable illegal and liable to be setaside. Hence seeks relief. The case of the opp.party is that the Tariff was converted to LT VI [C] from LT 1 A on the basis of the Inspection report of Regional Audit Office of Kerala State Electricity Board that the complainants son was using 200 watts of connected load for running a bank. The inspection and issuance of bill by opp.parties are quite legal and as per rules. The relief sought by the complainant is not allowable. The complainant filed affidavit, and he was examined as PW.1. Ext.P1 toP3 are marked. From the side of opp.party DW.1 examined. Ext. D1 marked. Heard both sides The points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties 2. Reliefs and costs. Points 1 and 2 The complainant’s case is that the issuance of invoice for Rs.14,357/- as per order of 2nd opp.party No.G.82 report/07-08/196 is illegal and unjustifiable. Electric connection bearing Consumer No.123 of Electrical Section Mayyanad was availed by the complainant for domestic purpose. The money lending business started by the complainant’s son so in one room of the complainant’s premises as a self employment and consumption for that purpose comes only 5% of the total domestic consumption. In the year 2005 the complainants application for installation of a separate meter for this purpose was rejected by the 3rd opp.party and intimated that there is a provision for Consumption of 20% of domestic consumption energy for other purposes. The opp.party’s case is that the invoice for Rs.14,357/- as per order of 2nd opp.party and the change in tariff were quite legal. It is admitted that up to 20% of total connected load of domestic purpose can be used by Registered Consumer for Commercial purpose and there is no need to install a separate meter. It is the connected load that matters and not the units consumed as described in the complaint. The privilege of consuming 20% the domestic consumption for other purposes is not applicable in this case. While inspection by the Regional Audit Officer of Kerala State Electricity Board in the complainant’s premises on 6.12.2006 it was found that the complainant’s son was using 200 watts of connected load for running a bank. The License of the same is not in the name of the complainant. Therefore service is treated as non domestic under VI C from the date of Inspection. Accordingly an additional invoice for Rs.14,375/- was served to the complainant. There was no restriction to avail a separate meter for the business purpose in the same building. The statement that the 3rd opp.party rejected the complainant’s request is against facts. There is no provision to charge electricity used in one room separately under different tariffs. The complainant’s case is that he was not heard before the issuance of invoice and the decision was Arbitrary and Illegal. The opp.party contended that the decision was not Arbitrary. The facts were explained to the complainant. The act of the complainant was violation of Terms and conditions of supply of Electrical energy. The opp.party acted only as per the law and there is no deficiency in service on their part.. We have carefully gone through the records, pleadings of the parties and documents adduced in evidence. Admittedly the complainant was a consumer of opp.parties. It is also admitted that upto the 20% of total connected load of domestic purpose can be used by Registered. consumer for other purposes and the energy consumed for the banking business purpose will not exceed the limit of 20% The main point of contention of opp.party is that the privilege of consuming 20% of domestic consumption for other purposes is not allowable to the other family members of the Registered. Consumer. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that explicitly the meaning domestic purpose used in the condition of supply of Electric Energy Regulation is for the use of the Reg. Consumer and his family members. No where it is stated that the privilege to use 20% of the connected load for commercial purpose is available only to the registered consumer and not to the family members. The opp.party pointed out that since the Bank is registered in the name of a person other than the registered consumer of Electricity the provisions as per item X under Part IV of Tariff Revision order No.1462/02/TRAC/10-1/2002 dt 24.10.2002 which is the existing rule cannot be applied. This privilege is applicable to a domestic consumer for purpose other than domestic, only for his own use. It is to be noted here that the 20 watts of connected load was consumed for Money lending business which was not connected with the Reg. consumer and the business registered in the name of his son. We are of the view that the consumption of energy for the banking business conducted by the complainant’s son is against the spirit of the provisions in the rules. The complainant alleged that his application for installation of separate meter in the year 2005 itself was rejected by the opp.parties. But he has not produced any evidence to prove that he had applied for the same at that time. The opp.parties had stated in their version that if the complainant is willing a fresh service connection can be given to his son under VI C tariff in the same building for functioning the bank with domestic tariff for the complainants existing connection. It is a case wherein the complainant himself had admitted that the service was utilized for commercial purpose also. Even though he has claimed that it was only for the livelihood of his family we cannot believe that the money lending business conducted by the complainant’s son was exclusively for the purpose of earning the livelihood by means of self-employment. The disputes related to the services availed for commercial purpose cannot be considered as a Consumer Dispute. As per section 2[1] [d] [ii] of Consumer Protection Act Consumer does not include a person who avail service for any commercial purpose. Hence this complainant is not a consumer. For all that has been discussed above we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. In the result the complaint is dismissed with compensatory cost Rs.500/- Dated this the 30th day of April , 2010. I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. Gopinathan List of documents for the complainant P1. – Invoice No.1`5039 dt. 28.9.07 P2. – Copy of letter dt. 29.9.07 P3. – Copy of Letter dt. 1.10.2007. List of witnesses for the opp.parties DW.1. – J. Madhusoodanan List of documents for the opp.parties D1. – Site Mahazor | 
