The Puran Murti Education Society, Sonepat Haryana has filed this revision petition against the order of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FA No.1681 of 2011. The State Commission has set aside the relief granted to the Complainant /revision petitioner by the District Forum, Sonepat and allowed the appeal of the S.D.O. OP Sub-Division UHBVNL on the sole ground that the Complainant is not a consumer. The relevant para in the order reads:- “At the very outset the question for consideration before us is whether the complainant falls under the definition of “consumer” or not as defined in Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which is reproduced as under:- “2(1) (d)
“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 services 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 services 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 purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment]”
Undisputedly, the electricity connection bearing A/c No.MM21-004-A is a non domestic connection which was installed at the business premises of the complainant i.e. Education Society wherein the electricity was being used by the complainant for commercial purposes. The complainant has failed to lead any evidence to prove the he was running the said education society for earning his livelihood. Thus, as per the provision of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act 1986, the complainant does not fall within the definition of “Consumer.”
2. On this limited issue, whether the petitioner/Complainant is a consumer or not, the revision petition contends that— “c. That the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula was failed to appreciate that the complainant institution is an Education Soeciety and is imparting education to the students and the complainant is not using the electricity energy for making any product or item for selling the same in the open market. Rather the complainant is using the electricity connection for the benefit of students by providing them all the electricity facilities.
D. That the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula was failed to appreciate that the motive of the petitioner was of social cause i.e. benevolent and hence is not for commercial purpose.
E. That the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula was failed to appreciate that even if it is accepted that the user was not domestic, it may be non-domestic. But it does not automatically become “commercial”. The words “non-domestic” and “commercial” are not interchangeable.”
3. We have considered this contention of the revision petitioner with reference to the record submitted before us and the arguments of Mr. Dinesh Malik, counsel for the petitioner.
4. At the outset, it needs to be observed that the stand of the Complainant itself, in the petition filed before the District Forum, was that “the said Society is running an Engineering College with the name and style of P.M. College of Engineering and Polytechnic in the area of vill. Kami Teh & Distt Sonepat. The said Society has taken one N.D.S. Electricity Connection in the above said college premises bearing a/c no.MM21-0004-A and they have been making payment of the consumption bills of the said connection to the respondent-Nigam regularly and without any default and nothing is due of the Nigam towards the complainant-society.”
5. Admittedly, therefore, the power connection in question is a non-domestic one. It is taken and utilized for the purposes of running a private Engineering College. As cited above, the revision petitioner has contended that ‘non-domestic’ does not automatically become ‘commercial’ and that the motive of the petitioner is benevolent, for a social cause, not for making products and selling them in the market. However, no evidence is placed on record to show that the college is being run for pure philanthropy. We do not find anything either in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner or in the evidence placed on record that the College is being run for a charitable purpose. On the contrary, when directly confronted on this point, learned counsel for the revision petitioner conceded that the College is not providing free of cost education. We therefore, find no merit in the argument advance on behalf of the revision petitioner.
6. Consequently, the revision petition fails for want of merit and is dismissed. The order of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in First Appeal No.1681 of 2011 is confirmed with no order as to costs. | 
