Today is fixed for hearing on the point of admission. Ld. Lawyer for the Complainant is present. Heard the lawyer for the Complainant.  Perused the complaint u/s 35 of the C.P. Act, 2019.

The complainat petition of the complainant stated as under.(  Point Number 1 to 10)

  1.That the complainant is posted as Manager of the Tin Bigha Tea Estate Factory, P.O. Bhuskadanga  (Madhabdanga),P.S.Maynaguri,Dist- Jalpaigur West Bengal and constituent attorney of ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL, S/O LateChandanmall Agarwala,residing at 18L, Alipore Road, Kolkata - 700027, who is the Director M/s Coochbehar Agro Tea Estates Pvt.Ltd.

2. That the above named factory as well as company is the consumer of the O.P. being consumer id no.934226000.

3. That in the month of March,2023 the complainant have received tremendously high electric bill from the O.P.i.e. amounting of Rs. 10,96,473.00/-(RupeesTen Lakh Ninety Six Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Three) only which is either mistakenly of negligently issued to the complainant by the O.P.

4. That it is not possible for the complainant's factory to consume this high amount of electricity to make tea.

5. That the details from March 2021 to March 2023 are given hereunder:

6. That from the above data it is clear that the complainant's company in March 2022 consumed total 114684 unit of electricity for making of 148745 kgs of Tea and received an amount of Rs.1133552/- for the same as electric Bill.But in March 2023 the company has made 65605 kgs of Tea and in the electric bill the consumption unit is renected as same as 2022 i.e. 114684 and received an innlated amount of electric Bill of Rs. 1096473/- which is not proper,correct reading/ bill as per the complainant and as per previous records of consumption of the electricity by the above noted factory.

7. That thereafter the complainant issued several letters on 11/4/2023, 12/4/2023，13/4/2023 and the O.P.replied on 13/4/2023 to the complainant and stated that the O.P. had no other alternative but to prefer the all bill as per WBERC/Regulation:55/3.6.

8. That thereafter the Ld. Advocate of the complainant, on behalf of the Complainant on 18/4/2023 issued a Legal Notice upon the O.P. stating all the facts,the Notice was duly served and accepted by the O.P. and the O.P.on 08/05/2023 replied and did not co operate with the complainant.

9. That the Complainant is consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act and the Rules framed there under and from the WBSEDCL Bill and all other documents of the O.P. where the id of the complainant's company is mentioned as "CONSUMER ID".

10. That this Forum has jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present complaint.

Decision with reasons-

According to the consumer protection act 2019 “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 ser­ vices 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 ser­ vices 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 purposes of earn­ing his livelihood by means of self ­em­ployment;”

 In the case of Shrikant G. Mantri vs Punjab National Bank on 22 February 2022, the Honorable Supreme Court stated that to come within the ambit of the consumer, a person will have to establish that the services were availed exclusively for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai said there cannot be any straitjacket formula and such a question will have to be decided in the facts of each case, depending upon the evidence placed on record. The bench said."When a person avails a service for a commercial purpose, to come within the meaning of 'consumer' as defined in the said Act, he will have to establish that the services were availed exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment," The Consumer Protection Act clearly shows that the legislative intent is to keep the commercial transactions out of the purview of the said Act. It said that a

t the same time, the intent of the Act is also to give benefit to a person who enters into such commercial transactions, when he uses such goods or avails such services exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.

 The honorable court observes that “Self-employment” necessarily includes earning for self. Without earning generally there cannot be “self­employment”. Thus, if a person buys and uses the machine exclu­ sively for the purposes of earning his liveli­ hood by means of “self­employment”, he def­ initely comes within the definition of “con­ sumer”. In the matter on hand, the quality of ultimate production by the user of the machine would depend upon the skill of the person who uses the machine. In case of ex­ igencies, if a person trains another person to operate the machine so as to produce the final product based on skill and effort in the matter of photography and development, the same cannot take such person out of the definition of “consumer”.”

                           Prior to going to the systematic fact of the case we scrutinize the entire documents placed by the complainant along with the complaint petition. On going through the record we find that complainant never mention the word “self- employment” or “earning his self livelihood” in his complaint petition. In the present case, we come to a finding that the relation between the O.P and the complainant is for his business and increases his profits. The relation between the complainant 43complainant  and the O.P is purely “BUSINESS TO BUSINESS” relationship. As such, the transactions would clearly come within the ambit of ‘COMMERCIAL PURPOSE’. It cannot be said that the services were availed “exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood” “by means of self­ employment”. It clearly proves that the transaction was for commercial purpose. In the present case, admittedly, the complainant company is running the business in order to generate profits and therefore, they have availed the services of the opposite party for commercial purpose.

Accordingly , the case number 36/2023 is dismissed being not maintainable before this Commission as the complainant is not a consumer of the O.P within the meaning of C.P of the Act 2019.Let the petition of complaint be returned to the complainant along with Annexures and other documents filed by the complainant. — Liberty is granted to complainant to approach Civil Court having jurisdiction for redressal of his grievances.

There shall be no order as to costs. All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

Let a copy of the order be sent / supplied at free of cost to the parties concerned.

The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in