National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Chandrakant Annarao Dhabale vs Dy. Ex. Engineer, Mgvcl on 13 July, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2332 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 04/03/2014 in Appeal No. 1679/2013 of the State Commission Gujarat) 1. CHANDRAKANT ANNARAO DHABALE SUB COMMITTE CHAIRMAN, NANDESARI INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION, PLOT NO-134/1 GIDC, NANDERSARI ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. DY. EX. ENGINEER, MGVCL KOYALI BARODA GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. V. Shaji, Advocate with
Mr. S.B. Shekhara, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Pradeep Misra, Advocate
Dated : 13 Jul 2015 ORDER
JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
The water supply to the industrial sheds in Nandesari was taken over by Nandesari Industries Association (hereinafter referred to as 'Association'), which then started providing the said service to its members on 'no profit no loss basis'. The complainant in this case is the Chairman of the Water Sub Committee of the Nandesari Industries Association, which claims to be rendering the said service to its members on no profit no loss basis. A bill of Rs.6,55,306.34 was received by the Association due to slow meter. The complainant claims to have made part payment of the aforesaid bill. A consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum, challenging the legality of the aforesaid bill.
The complaint was resisted by the respondent inter-alia on the ground that the main purpose of the electricity connection was to use the electricity for business purposes and therefore, the benefit of the Consumer Protection Act could not be claimed by the complainant.
2. The District Forum vide its order dated 26.07.2013 dismissed the complaint holding that the services of the respondent / opposite party were availed for a commercial purpose since water was being supplied to industrial sheds. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 04.3.2014, the petitioner is before us by way of this revision petition.
3. The electricity being taken from the opposite party is being used by the Association for the purpose of maintaining and running a system for supplying water to industrial sheds situated in Nandesari. Though, the said Association may not be generating any profit by supply of water to the aforesaid sheds, the fact remains that the water being supplied by the Association is being used for industrial activities, which is a commercial purpose. If the industrial sheds take water or electricity for running and maintaining a water supply system directly from the concerned authorities, that obviously would be for a commercial purpose. In my opinion, it makes no difference whether the supply is being taken directly from the concerned authorities or by forming an Association which obtains electricity from the opposite party for the purpose of running the system meant for supplying water to the industrial sheds. The electricity which the Association takes from the opposite party is eventually used for a commercial purpose since it is used for supplying water, meant for industrial use. The water supply system being run by the Association with the help of electricity taken from the opposite party is not being used for a domestic purpose. It is being used for industrial purposes which undisputedly is a commercial purpose. Therefore, it would be difficult to dispute that the services of the opposite party were availed by the petitioner/complainant for a commercial purpose. Even if the complainant/petitioner was not making any profit by the aforesaid activity, since water supplied by it was consumed for a commercial purpose, the services availed by it shall be a service availed for a commercial purpose.
4. Though, the Society is a person, as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, it is not a consumer since the bill in question was issued and the complaint was filed after amendment of Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, which excludes from the ambit of the expression Consumer 'a person hiring or availing service for a commercial purpose'.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decisions of this Commission in Superintending Engineer, Madhya Gujarat Vij. Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Vinav Enterprises, Gujarat, Revision Petition No.3875 of 2006, decided on 09.02.2011, Chief Engineer, Electricity Department & Ors. Vs. Virender Kumar, Revision Petition No.1977 of 2008 decided on 10.09.2014 and Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited Vs. Ramesh Kumar Rohilla, I (2015) CPJ 249 (NC). He has also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Vinod Kumar Jain Vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. decided on 30.4.2008, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Vs. Smt. Basantibai, AIR 1988 SC 71 and Bombay Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking Vs. Laffan (I) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. II (2005) CPJ 6 (SC). However, none of the aforesaid decisions applies to the case before us and therefore, the reliance on the aforesaid decisions, in my view, is whole misplaced.
6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no ground to interfere with the orders passed by the fora below. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER