National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Shivaji Narhari Karpe vs Executive Engineer, M.S.E.D.C. Ltd. & 2 ... on 23 March, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2212 OF 2012 (Against the Order dated 06/01/2012 in Appeal No. 995/2007 of the State Commission Maharastra) 1. SHIVAJI NARHARI KARPE R/o Waruda, Post Oluph Tq Bhoom Osmanabad Maharastra ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, M.S.E.D.C. LTD. & 2 ORS. Osmanabad, Tq Osmanabad Maharastra 2. Assitant Ebgineer, M.S.E.D.C. Ltd Bhoom, Tq Bhoom Osmanabad Maharastra 3. Superintendent Engineer, MSEDC Ltd Latur ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahaling Pandarge, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent : Mr. Ajit S. Bhasme, Advocate
Dated : 23 Mar 2015 ORDER
This revision is directed against the order of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputed Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (in short, "the State Commission") dated 6.1.2015 whereby the State Commission allowed the appeal preferred against the order of the District Forum, Osmanabad in complaint case No.137/2007, set aside the said order and dismissed the complaint.
2. Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the respondent/complainant filed a consumer complaint alleging that he had obtained electricity connection for his flour mill in the year 1970. It is the case of the complainant that he had been regularly paying electricity bills but on 19.5.2007 the respondent electricity company issued a bill of Rs.2,69,940/- for earlier period whereas as per Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 the respondent was not entitled to demand payment of bill pertaining to more than two years prior to the date of issue of bill. The complaint was resisted.
3. District Forum on consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence allowed the complaint and directed as under: -
"1. All the electricity bills issued by the opponents to the complainant are quashed and set aside.
2. The opponents are directed to issue the electricity bill in favour of the complainant from July, 2005 as per the entries made in the Consumer Personal Extract (CPL) in respect of meter reading.
3. The amount of electricity bill, which has been paid by the complainant from July, 2007, shall be absorbed in the electricity bill to be issued as per the order No.2 above.
4. Parties shall bear their own costs."
4. State Commission, Maharashtra in appeal set aside the order of the District forum and dismissed the complaint. This has led to filing of the revision petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the respondent at the outset has raised an issue that the revision petition is liable to be dismissed for the reason that the petitioner does not fall within the definition of consumer as defined under Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as such the consumer complaint itself was not maintainable.
6. Learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner on the contrary has refuted the contention of learned counsel for the respondent contending that the flour mill was set up by the petitioner for earning livelihood by way of self-employment and as such case of the petitioner/complainant falls within the exception to the definition of consumer.
7. In order to find answer to the above controversy, it would be useful to have a look on the definition of consumer as provided in Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which reads as under: -
"(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 purposes;
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 purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment"
8. On reading of the above, it is clear that consumer is a person who buys any goods for consideration or hires or avails any services for consideration whether paid or promised to be paid in future. An exception to this wide definition has been carved out by incorporating in the section that the said definition a person is not a consumer, who purchases goods or avails of services for any commercial purpose. The explanation to the section provides a further exception by explaining that 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 way of self-employment.
9. In the light of the above, definition of consumer when I considered the facts of the case, admittedly the electricity connected was availed by the complainant for a commercial purpose i.e. running of a flour mill. The complainant is seeking benefit of the exception clause. Since the explanation clause provides an exception to the general rule, in order to avail benefit of the explanation clause the complainant was required to plead and prove that he was running the flour mill exclusively for earning his livelihood by way of self-employment. This fact is neither pleaded nor proved on record. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to the benefit of the exception carved out in the explanation to Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner/complainant is not a consumer as envisaged under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He, therefore, has no locus standi to maintain the consumer complaint. Thus, the order of the State Commission dismissing the complaint cannot be faulted and there is no occasion for interfering in the impugned order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
10. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.
11. It is clarified that this order will not come in the way of the complainant to avail of appropriate remedy by approaching the appropriate forum.
......................J AJIT BHARIHOKE PRESIDING MEMBER