Per: Justice B.S. Verma, President (Oral):
Heard Sh. Vibhore Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant.
This appeal has been preferred with a delay of 40 days’.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on delay condonation application.
The delay in filing the appeal has been explained by the appellant in the delay condonation application supported with an affidavit of Sh. Saurabh Bansal, Partner of the appellant – firm.
We are satisfied with the reasons shown by the appellant for delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the delay condonation application is allowed and the delay of 40 days’ in filing the appeal is condoned.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant on admission.
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 29.01.2018 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar in consumer complaint No. 99 of 2015, whereby the District Forum has dismissed the consumer complaint.
The District Forum has dismissed the consumer complaint on the ground that the consumer complaint was not maintainable before the District Forum, as the electricity connection in question is a commercial connection.
The word “consumer” has been defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the following manner:
“(d) “consumer” means any person who –
- 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
- 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.”
By a perusal of the above definition of “consumer”, it is evident that the consumer does not include a person who obtains goods or avails of services for any commercial purpose. In the instant case, the appellant – complainant is a partnership firm and the electricity connection in question was taken by the firm known as Shyam Frozen Foods (complainant).
The District Forum has given a detailed and categorical finding on the issue. We find no error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the District Forum. The appeal has got no force and is liable to be dismissed.
Appeal is dismissed summarily at the threshold. No order as to costs.
