(Through Adv. Sri Rajendra Kumar Sahu
for the Complainant)
(Through Adv. Sri Mahendra Kumar Mahapatra
for the Opposite Parties)
CORAM:
SMT. SARITRI PATTANAIK, PRESIDENT
SHRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, MEMBER
JUDGMENT
PER: SHRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, MEMBER
The present complaint has been filed by the Complainant before this Commission alleging deficiency services on the part of the opposite parties for not restoring the power supplies to his commercial/industrial unit till the filling of this case and has prayed the following reliefs:-
- Admit the complaint;
- Direct the Opp. Parties to supply the electric power connection to the mill premises of the Complainant;
- Direct the Opp. Parties to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) towards mental agony, harassment suffered by the complainant and for the unfair trade practice applied by the Opp. Parties; and
- Grant the cost of the dispute as well as pass further such orders as the Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper in the best interest of justice.
Fact of the Case:-
The power supply was disrupted on 16.05.2016 during the village festival and it was continued for two days. But the opposite parties were managed to restore the power supply of the domestic supplies of the village on 19.05.2016 but failed to restore the power supply of the Commercial/Industrial units of the complainant bearing Consumer No.:353001050299 till the filling of this case. For the said cause, the present complainant has sustained huge financial loss and mental agony. To restore the power supply to his commercial unit, the complainant has issued an Advocate Notice through registered post with A/D on 14.06.2016 but no opposite parties replied to the said notice. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed this consumer complaint to grant relief as mentioned above.
Heard and admit the case and issued notice to all the opposite parties. The opposite parties duly acknowledging the notice of this Commission have filed their written version. The Opposite Parties have filed their written argument in the case whereas the complainant remains absent since 2016.
The opposite parties have denied all the allegations and claims of the complainant but admitted that the Complainant is their consumer who is having a haler rice mill vide electricity consumer no: 353001050299 and used the electricity supply for commercial purposes under industrial tariff, so in the eye of law being the unit of the Complainant is a commercial establishment and given the commercial transaction, the present complainant is not a consumer within the definition of the ‘Consumer’ of Consumer Protection Act. Given the clear provisions of law, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed without examining the facts and circumstances of the case as stated in the complaint and this Hon’ble Commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint i.e., the dispute arose between the parties out of commercial transactions. Further, the Counsel for the opposite parties Adv. Sri Mahendra Kumar Mahapatra have also submitted that, the complainant has admitted in his complaint that, he is a consumer of commercial nature.
But the complainant has not adduced any evidence in contrary to the written version of the opposite parties and did not file any evidences and written argument also even after providing sufficient opportunities by this Commission.
Heard the argument from the learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties and have gone through the documents on record.
On perusal of the case records the complainant has failed to substantiate his position as a term ‘Consumer’ and ‘Complainant’ in the instant case. Law is well settled that, the Consumer Protection Act not covering disputes of commercial nature as held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in several of cases. And relying on U. P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. Anis Ahmed, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, “28. From a bare reading of section aforesaid we find that the "consumer" as defined under Section 2(15) of Electricity Act, 2003 includes any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a licensee and also includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a licensee, irrespective of the fact whether such person is supplied with electricity for his own use or not. Per contra under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 those who were supplied with electricity for commercial purpose and those who do not avail services for consideration, irrespective of electricity connection in their premises do not come within the meaning of "consumer". The present complainant is of commercial consumer nature hence the complainant is not coming under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.
Given the above, we are not inclined to entertain the Complaint. Thus the present Consumer Complaint case is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Interim Application is pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.
A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or they may download same from the www.confonet.nic.in to treat the same as if copy of the order received from this Commission. A copy of this order be also sent to the Secretary, State Consumer Disputes Rederssal Commission, Odisha, Cuttack for information
The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(SHRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI)
MEMBER
(SMT. SARITRI PATTANAIK)
PRESIDENT
PRONOUNCED ON: 14.11.2022.
