We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petition is filed against the order of the State Commission in FA No. 2280/07. The contention of the petitioner was that the electricity supply was illegally disconnected and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to run the business of stone crusher during the relevant period. The electricity bill No. 19898, for amount of       Rs.2,54,570/- was, therefore, illegally issued.  The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the said amount to be refunded to the petitioner, with interest @ 7% p.a. along-with Rs. 5,500/- as litigation expenses.  The State Commission, however,  reversed the order of the District Forum, relying upon the observations in Mohammad Haseeb Ahmad Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board & ors – 2010 CTJ 886 (CP) (NC) and  D. Ghodawat Vs. RRB Energy Ltd. – 201 CTJ 928 (CP) (NC)

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the facts of Mohd. Haseeb Ahmad’s case are on different footings because he submits that the contention regarding personal use of the electricity  for the purpose of self-employment was raised in that case after about seven years and, therefore, such contention was not accepted. But in the present case, in the complaint itself, the petitioner had stated that the stone crusher was being used by the petitioner – firm for the livelihood.  The contention of the learned counsel, therefore, is that the State Commission should not have interfered with the order of the District Forum without deciding the issue and as to whether the petitioner is a “consumer” of the respondent or not. 

We find it difficult to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner.  The petitioner is not an individual as such, but is a registered partnership firm, as shown in the complaint itself.  The petitioner did not place on record as to who are the partners and what is the nature of the partnership firm, as per the terms of the registered document of partnership.  The relevant averments in paragraph 1 of the complaint are as under :-

“The complainant is the partner of M/s. Gayatri Stone Crusher and who is fully competent to file the present complaint and is fully conversant with the facts of the present complaint and the complainant and his family is fully depend on this firm and there is no other source for livelihood except this firm of complainant and his family members”.  

The dependency of the partner and his family members of the firm can be verified only on the basis of nature of the partnership document.  The allegation was denied by the respondent and, therefore, it was necessary for the petitioner to place on record the relevant material to show that the stone crusher was used for the purpose of personal use and was the only source of livelihood of himself and his family members.  The business of stone crusher could not be recorded as ‘small business’  and particularly, in view of the nature of the electricity bills which were issued to the petitioner.  The petitioner did not place on record any relevant and  satisfactory material to establish that he answers the description of the definition of the word “consumer”, as enumerated in section 2(1)(d) of the CP Act, 1986.  Consequently, the impugned order of the State Commission cannot be branded as perverse or arbitrary.  No interference is warranted.  The revision petition is dismissed.