Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. In brief facts of the present case are that the present complaint filed on 16.12.2014, however, record shows that during the proceedings the original file was misplaced. An application filed for reconstruction as per order dated 17.11.2017. The file was reconstructed.
2. As per complaint filed by complainant he is the consumer of CA no. 600117291810 in the name of his mother Smt. Kusum Lata. It is stated that complainant has been using the electric connection for the purpose for which it has been sanctioned and never committed any breach of agreement or violated any rules/regulations at any  point of time.  The complainant is earning his livelihood by using the said electric connection and regularly paying all the consumption bills. It is further stated that in the month of October 2014 OP issued a bill of Rs.1,45,880/- without giving any details or notice while the current demand is only Rs.2738/-. It is illegal, wrong excessive bill and when complainant went to deposit the current bill the officials did not accept. The complainant visited the office and requested to withdraw the huge illegal bill but no response was given.
3. It is stated that the OP indulge in illegal, improper and arbitrarily  and against the principal of natural justice which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, therefore, present complaint filed seeking quashing/revising wrong, illegal and improper bill alongwith entire LPSC if any, not to disconnect electricity  supply till dismissal of the  case and any other relief which deem fit and proper be also be granted.
4. As per record the application filed by OP which was fixed for 25.10.2021 for dismissal of the complaint. It is stated that the issue in question was already decided vide order dated 13.10.2014, therefore, present complaint is not maintainable. It is further stated that as per bill for the month of August 2021, the present connection is in the name of Kusum Lata and it is non-domestic light connection, therefore, this forum has no jurisdiction. The AR for OP also relied on judgment of Srikant G. Mantri Vs Punjab National Bank (Supreme Court) decided on 22.02.2022.
5. We have heard counsel for complainant Sh. M.K Gill and Sh. Harish Purohit AR for OP and perused the record.
6. The OP has taken objection that registered  consumer of CA No.60017291810 is Smt. Kusum Lata who is mother of the complainant. It is admitted in the complaint that electricity connection is not in  the name of complainant but in  the name of his mother. Prima-facai complainant has no locus-standi to challenge the electricity bill or any demand  of electricity. It is also  not  disclosed whether complainant’s mother on the day of filing of complaint was alive or not. It is further  admitted by complainant  that  Smt. Kusum lata is not using the installed electricity connection but complainant is using it for  earning livelihood. It is pertinent to mention here that there is no facts mentioned with regard to livelihood through non-domestic light connection in the name of Smt. Kusum lata by complainant. We are of considered opinion that complainant  no locus-standi to file the present complaint.
7. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant had not disclosed the true  and correct facts in the present complaint. The complainant has not explained what commercial activity  have been carrying out for earning livelihood. The vital facts have been concealded with regard to the use of the non-domestic light connection in the name of Smt. Kusum Lata. The category of the  connection NDLT establish that the electric connection is for commercial purposes. In these circumstances the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shrikant G. Mantri Vs Punjab National Bank laid down the prinicple of law in civil appeal no.11397 of 2016 dated 22.02.2022 that

32. The purpose of the said Act has been succinctly described by this Court in the case of , which is as under:

“10. A review of the provisions of the Act discloses that the quasi-judicial bodies-authorities/agencies created by the Act known as District Forums, State Commissions and the National Commission are not courts though invested with some of the powers of the civil court. They are quasi-judicial tribunals brought into existence to render inexpensive and speedy remedies to consumers. It is equally clear that these forums/commissions were not supposed to supplant but supplement the existing judicial system. The idea was to provide an additional forum providing inexpensive and speedy resolution of disputes arising between consumers and suppliers of goods and services. The forum so created is uninhibited by the requirement of court fee or the formal procedures of a court. Any consumer can go and file a complaint. Complaint need not necessarily be filed by the complainant himself; any recognized consumers’ association can espouse his cause. Where a large number of consumers have a similar complaint, one or more can file a complaint on behalf of all. Even the Central Government and State Governments can act on his/their behalf. The idea was to help the consumers get justice and fair treatment in the matter of goods and services purchase and availed by them in a market dominated by large trading and manufacturing bodies. Indeed, the entire Act revolves round the consumer and is designed to protect his interest. The Act provides for “business-to-consumer” disputes and not for “business-to-business” disputes. This scheme of the Act, in our opinion, is relevant to and helps in interpreting the words that fall for consideration in this appeal”.

33. It could thus be seen that this Court has clearly held that the idea of enacting the said Act was to help the consumers get justice and fair treatment in the matter of goods and services purchased and availed by them in a market dominated by large trading and manufacturing bodies. It has been held that the entire Act revolves round the consumer and is designed to protect his interest. It provides for “business-to-consumer” disputes and not for “business-to-business” disputes. It has been held that forums/commissions provided by the said Act are not supposed to supplant but supplement the existing judicial system. The idea was to provide an additional forum providing inexpensive and speedy resolution of disputes arising between consumers and suppliers of goods and services.

34. In the case of (supra), this Court, while considering the scope of the definition of the expression ‘consumer’ with relation to Section 2 (1)(d)(i) of he said Act and the Explanation added by 1993 Amendment Act, observed thus:

“11.Now coming back to the definition of the expression ‘consumer’ in Section 2(d), a consumer means insofar as is relevant for the purpose of this appeal, (I) a person who buys any goods for consideration; it is immaterial whether the consideration is paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or whether the payment of consideration is deferred; (ii) a person who uses such goods with the approval of the person who buys such goods for consideration; (iii) but does not include a person who buys such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose. The expression ‘resale’ is clear enough. Controversy has, however, arisen with respect to meaning of the expression “commercial purpose”. It is also not defined in the Act. In the absence of a definition, we have to go by its ordinary meaning. ‘Commercial’ denotes “pertaining to commerce” (Chamber’s Twentieth Century Dictionary); it means “connected with, or engaged in commerce; mercantile; having profit as the main aim” (Collins English Dictionary) whereas the word ‘commerce’means “financial transactions especially buying and selling of merchandise, on a large scale” (Concise Oxford Dictionary). The National Commission appears to have been taking a consistent view that where a person purchases goods “with a view to using such goods for carrying on any activity on a large scale for the purpose of earning profit” he will not be a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(d)(i) of the Act. Broadly affirming the said view and more particularly with a view to obviate any confusion-the expression “large scale” is not a very precise expression-Parliament stepped in and added the explanation to Section 2(d)(i) by Ordinance/Amendment Act, 1993. The explanation excludes certain purposes from the purview of the expression “commercial purpose”- a case of exception to an exception. Let us elaborate: a person who buys a typewriter or a car and uses them for his personal use is certainly a consumer but a person who buys a typewriter or a car for typing others’ work for consideration or for plying the car as a taxi can be said to be using the typewriter/car for a commercial purpose. The explanation however clarifies that in certain situations, purchase of goods for “commercial purpose” would not yet take the purchaser out of the definition of expression ‘consumer’. If the commercial use is by the purchaser himself for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, such purchaser of goods is yet a ‘consumer’. In the illustration given above, if the purchaser himself workson typewriter or plies the car as a taxi himself, her does not cease to be a consumer. In other words, if the buyer of goods uses them himself, i.e, by self-employment, for earning his livelihood, it would not be treated as a “commercial purpose” and he does not cease to be a consumer for the purposes of the Act. The explanation reduces the question, what is a “commercial purpose”, to a question of fact to be decided in the facts of each case. It is not the value of the goods that matters but the purpose to which the goods bought are put to. The several words employed in the explanation, viz, “uses them by himself”, “exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood” and “by means of self-employment” make the intention of Parliament abundantly clear, that the goods bought must be used by the buyer himself, by employing himself for earning his livelihood. A few more illustrations would serve to emphasise what we say. A person who purchases an auto-rickshaw to ply it himself on hire for earning his livelihood would be a consumer. Similarly, a purchaser of a truck who purchases it for plying it as a public carrier by himself would be a consumer. A person who purchases a lathe machine or other machine to operate it himself for earning his livelihood would be a consumer. (In the above illustrations, if such buyer takes the assistance of one or two persons to assist/help him in operating the vehicle or machinery, he does not cease to be a consumer.) As against this a person who purchases an auto-rickshaw, a car or a lathe machine or other machine to be plied or operated exclusively by another person would not be a consumer. This is the necessary limitation flowing from the expressions “used by him”, and “by means of self-employment” in the explanation. The ambiguity in the meaning of the words “for the purpose of earning his livelihood” is explained and clarified by the other two sets of words.”

41.In the case of Leelavati Kirti Lal Mehta Medical Trust (supra)wherein this court after considering the earlier judgments held thus:

“19. To summarise from the above discussion, though a strait jacket formula cannot be adopted in every case, the following broad principles can be culled out for determining whether an activity or transaction is “fora commercial purpose”:

19.1. The question of whether a transaction is for a commercial purpose would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, ordinarily, “commercial purpose” is understood to include manufacturing/industrial activity or business-to-business transactions between commercial entities.

19.2 The purchase of the good or service should have a close and direct nexus with a profit-generating activity.

19.3 The identity of the person making the purchase or the value of the transaction is nto conclusive to the questionof whether it is for a commercial purpose. It has to be seen whether the dominant intention or dominant purpose for the transaction was tofacilitate some kind of profit generation forthe purchaser and/or their beneficiary.

19.4 If it is found that the dominant purpose behind purchasing the good or service was for the personal use and consumption of the purchaser and/or theirbeneficiary, or is otherwise not linked to any commercial activity, the question of whether such a purchase was for the purpose of “generating livelihood by means of sel-employment” need not be looked into.”

42. It is thus clear, that this Court has held that the question, as to whether a transaction is for a commercial purpose would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, ordinarily, “commercial purpose” is understood to include manufacturing/industrial activity or business-to-business transactions between commercial entities; that the purchase of the good or service should have a close and direct nexus with a profit-generating activity; that the identity of the person making the purchase or the value of the transaction is not conclusive for determining the question as to whether it is for a commercial purpose or not. What is relevant is the dominant intention or dominant purpose for the transaction and as to whether the same was to facilitate some kind of profit generation for the purchaser and/or their beneficiary.

8. In view of above discussed Shrikant G Mantri (supra) in the present fact and circumstances of the case present connection is for commercial purposes therefore, present complaint is not maintainable.
9. On the basis of above observation and discussion present complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. File be consigned to record room.
10. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  24.11.2023.

SANJAY KUMAR                                                           NIPUR CHANDNA  

     PRESIDENT                                                                      MEMBER