For Complainant         :           Sri L. M. Mishra, Advocate & associates.

For Opp. Party             :           Sri M. Kurma Rao, Advocate.

1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he has taken electricity connection to his Filling Station from the OP vide Con. No.CP-K2-85(714001020261) and paying electricity dues regularly but the OP has charged Rs.13200/- through its bills towards reconnection fees for the month July’13, Aug.’13, Sept.’13, Nov.’13, Jan.’14 and Mar.’14 when there was no disconnection of supply to the Filling Station physically.  According to the complainant, the amount so demanded by the OP towards reconnection charge is illegal but on the other hand, due to irregular power supply by the OP, the complainant had to purchase a Diesel Generator for Rs.1, 60,000/- and met diesel expenses of Rs.57, 000/- by availing loan.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP not to demand Rs.13200/- towards reconnection charges, to pay Rs.57000/- towards fuel expenses and Rs.1, 60,000/- towards cost of generator besides Rs.20, 000/- towards compensation to the complainant.

2.                     The OP filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the complainant is a habitual defaulter in paying electricity dues.  It is contended that the complainant has taken service connection to his commercial unit i.e. to a Petrol Bunk which is not a petty business for eking one’s livelihood as stated by the complainant.  The OP further stated that claim of reconnection charges is based on the orders of the OERC dt.20.3.2013 wherein the OP is authorised to impose reconnection charge in every 2 months on the defaulters who do not pay electricity dues within due date.  It is also further contended that the OP is not liable for the expenses incurred by the complainant towards purchase of generator and diesel to run the same.  With these and other contentions, denying the complainant as consumer and challenging the maintainability of this case before this Forum, he prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     Both the parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases.  The complainant has filed affidavit.  Heard from the A/R for the Ops and perused the materials available on record for orders on merit.

4.                     In this case, the complainant stated that he runs a petrol bunk by obtaining electricity connection for earning his livelihood and paying electricity dues regularly but the OP has illegally charged reconnection fees when no disconnection has been effected by the OP at any point of time.  The OP stated that they have charged reconnection fees as per order of OERC since the complainant is a chronic defaulter in paying electricity dues.  The OP in this case stated that they have supplied electricity to the commercial unit of the complainant and hence the complainant is not a consumer who comes under commercial category.  Hence the complainant cannot approach the Consumer Forum with this case.

5.                     We have heard from the learned A/R for the OP on the above point at length. present case is maintainable and the  Before going into other merits of this case, we are inclined to decide the preliminary issues in order to see whether the complainant is a consumer of the OP duly coming u/s.2(1)(d) CPA and the present case is maintainable before this Forum.

6.                     The first question for consideration arises before us is whether the complainant comes in the category of “Consumer” as defined in Section 2(1) (d) of C.P. Act, 1986.  A combined reading of explanation as well as definition of “consumer” makes it very clear that as and when services are hired or availed by any person on payment for commercial purpose, then unless such services are hired or availed by such person, for the purpose of earning livelihood by self employment, such person does not come in the category of “consumer”.

7.                     In the facts of the present case the complainant is running a Filling Station to sell fuel.  This activity definitely involves wide range of investment like roadside land, machines, infrastructure, and man power to run the establishment.  A huge amount must have been deposited with the oil company.  From the available record, it was ascertained that the complainant has engaged a person as Manager to see the affairs.  In the whole of the complaint nothing has been stated by the complainant as whether this so called Filling Station is being run by him by self employment for the purpose of earning his livelihood.  Only it has been stated that the Filling Station established by him for earning his livelihood but without uttering self employment.  From the above facts and circumstances,  the Filling Station of the complainant remains as a commercial unit for the purpose of earning more profit and when there is no pleading to the effect that it has been established by the complainant for earning livelihood by way of self employment, then it cannot be said that his case comes under the purview of Explanation added in the definition of “consumer” under Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act, 1986 and so it remains as a commercial unit and the availment of electricity from the OP remains for the purpose of commercial use and so the complainant of the present case is excluded from the definition of “consumer” as defined in the Act and so his complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum.

8.                     In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant having no merit.  No order as to costs.

(to dict.)