The State Commission dismissed the complaint on the ground that the electricity connection has been used for commercial purpose.

          Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no such evidence on record.  We are not impressed by his arguments. The revision petition itself goes to show that the complaint was filed by Anil Spinners, a regd. Partnership Firm, Manufacturers of Soddy

Yarn, Acrylic Yarn and Blankets, Industrial Area, Panipat through its Partner Ravinder Goel son of Sh. Kashmiri Lal Goel, resident of House No. 303-L, Model Town, Panipat.  The complainant himself states that his premises is situated in an industrial area, Panipat.  The State Commission has placed reliance on the National Commission’s authority in Mohammad Haseeb Ahmad Versus Maharastra State Electricity Board and Ors. 2010 CTJ 886 (CP) (NCDRC).  It must be mentioned here that the complaint was filed in the year 11.10.2007 after the amendments were effected in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

There is no merits in the revision petition, therefore, the same is dismissed.  However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to seek redressal of his grievances before the appropriate forum except the consumer fora, as per law.