State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Torrent Power Ltd vs Shri Anil Mohandas Parwani on 16 August, 2011
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE THE
HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Revision
Petition No. RP/10/126
(Arisen out
of Order Dated 29/05/2010 in Case No. 329/09 of District Thane)
1. TORRENT POWER LTD
OLD AGRA
ROAD ANJUR PHATA BHIWANDI
DISTRICT THANE
MAHARASHTRA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. SHRI ANIL MOHANDAS PARWANI
R/AT 222 GALA NO 11 VILLAGE SONALE TAL BHIWANDI
THANE
MAHARASHTRA
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde MEMBER PRESENT:
None for the revisionist Mr.A.Gogate-Advocate for the opponent ORDER Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member None present for the revisionist. Heard Mr.A.Gogate-Advocate for the opponent.
In this revision petition revisionist wants to challenge the order dated 29/05/2010 whereby the contentions of the revisionist, who is original opponent in the consumer complaint filed before the forum, challenging locus standi and status of the opponent/original complainant on the ground that since the energy supply was given for commercial purpose, the opponent/original complainant is not a consumer and, therefore, consumer forum has no jurisdiction to try the consumer complaint, was turned down vis--vis not accepted by the forum.
Admittedly, it is the service for supply of energy rendered by the revisionist to the opponent/original complainant. It may be that connection was given for commercial purpose but considering the nature of service which is not directly connected to the loss or profit of the business, it cannot be said that opponent /original complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Under the circumstances, finding of the forum reached while dismissing application to this effect as per impugned order, cannot be faulted with.
Though it is not mentioned in this order, Ld.counsel appearing for the opponent submitted before us that challenge was also to the locus standi of the opponent/original complainant on the ground that energy connection is not in his name and, therefore, he is not a consumer. He claimed to be a beneficial consumer and for that purpose relies upon full bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in the matter of Abhimanyu Muzumdar v/s. Superintending Engineer and another : 2011(4) ALL MR (Journal) 22. It may be pointed out that this position is not reflected from the impugned order and, therefore, need not be considered while assessing the legality of the impugned order, which is a subject matter of this revision.
Further, issue as to whether the complainant is a consumer or not is a mixed question of law and fact, therefore, it cannot be settled raising a preliminary issue. Revisionist can take appropriate defence by filing the written version.
For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in the revision petition and it is not a case where revisional powers of this Commission be invoked. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER Revision petition is not admitted and stands rejected accordingly.
Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced on 16th August, 2011.
[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode] PRESIDING MEMBER [Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde] MEMBER Ms.