Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HYDERABAD
Honble Mr. Justice A. Venkatarami Reddy,
President; Mr. Pothuri Venkateswara Rao &
Mrs. J. Ananda Lakshmi, Members
M/s. SRI ANANDA ICE FACTORY—Complainant
versus
THE ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL ENGINEER ELECT. & ANR.—Opp. Parties
C.D. No. 92 of 1993—Decided on 23.4.1993

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant :Mr. P. Kesava Rao, Advocate.
For the Opp. Parties. : Mr. C. Nagarjuna Reddy, Standing counsel.

Consumer disputes may not be maintainable if the power usage is for a commercial purpose, but the court may consider peculiar circumstances and provide relief accordingly.

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Commercial Purpose - Power Supply
Fact of the Case:

The complainant sought to quash a letter as illegal and arbitrary under Section 17a (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The opposite party objected that the consumer dispute is not maintainable as the power used by the complainant is for a commercial purpose.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the consumer dispute is not maintainable due to the commercial purpose of the power used by the complainant. However, considering the seasonal nature of the complainant's business, the court directed the opposite party to restore power supply upon depositing a specified sum.
Issues: Maintainability of consumer dispute due to commercial purpose of power usage
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the consumer dispute was not maintainable due to the commercial purpose of the power used by the complainant. However, it considered the peculiar circumstances of the complainant's seasonal business and directed the restoration of power supply upon depositing a specified sum.
Final Decision: The consumer dispute was disposed of, and the opposite party was directed to restore power supply upon the complainant's compliance with the specified conditions.

ORDER

Mr. Justice A. Venkatarami Reddy, President—Case under Section 17a (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed herein in the State Commission will be pleased to quash the letter No. ADE/OP/R/WGL/F.DOCK/D. No. 34/93 dated 20.4.93 as illegal and arbitrary.

2. 2.This case coming on for hearing upon perusing the memorandum of grounds filed herein and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. P. Kesava Rao, Advocate for the complainant and of Mr. C. Nagarjuna Reddy, Advocate for the opposite party, the Commission made the following order:—

3. The Standing Counsel, Mr. Nagarjuna Reddy took notice. He raised an objection that the consumer dispute is not maintainable, since the power used by the complainant is admittedly for a commercial purpose and that therefore, the complainant cannot be a consumer and is not entitled for any relief under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

This Commission in C.D. 92/92 took the same view. Hence we have no hesitation in finding that the consumer dispute is not maintainable.

4. But the complainants business is merely a seasonal business, he will suffer great hardship, if he has no power during this summer season. In these circumstances, we direct the opposite parties to restore the power supply to the complainant’s factory as and when it deposits a sum of Rs. 1,14,000.00 (Rupees one lakh fourteen thousand only) with the Assistant Accounts Officer, A.P.S.E.B., Warangal. The complainant has to submit the necessary explanation and participate in the final assessment proceedings. This order is passed in view of the peculiar circumstances and will not be treated as a precedent.

5. The consumer Dispute is according disposed of. No orders as to costs.

Consumer disputes disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis