Back
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Rane, President & Mr. V.K. Date, Member
DREAM WORKS ENTERTAINMENT AND SOFTWARE LTD.—Appellant
versus
B.S.E.S. LIMITED—Respondent
Appeal No. 368 of 2004 & Complaint No. 318 of 2003—Decided on 27.2.2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Y.C. Naidu, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.
Corporate entities are considered commercial entities and are not entitled to avail remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Headnote:
Consumer Dispute - Electricity Consumption Charges - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(d)(ii) - The court confirmed the dismissal of the complaint by the District Forum, ruling that the complainant, a corporate entity, was a commercial entity and therefore not entitled to avail remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed an appeal against the dismissal of their complaint by the District Forum, alleging deficiency in the demand for electricity consumption charges by the Electricity Board.
Finding of the Court:
The court confirmed the dismissal of the complaint, stating that the complainant, being a corporate entity, was a commercial entity and not entitled to avail remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Issues: Alleged deficiency in demand for electricity consumption charges, jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum, and the complainant's status as a commercial entity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the complainant, being a corporate entity, was a commercial entity and therefore not entitled to avail remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the complainant was directed to directly pay a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs to the Electricity Board, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both parties.
Mr. Justice M.S. Rane, President—We are proceeding to dispose of this appeal at the stage of its admission itself on perusal of the material available in the appeal paper book and on hearing the learned Advocate for appellants.
(For brevity’s sake appellants who is original complainant is referred to as “complainant” and respondent who are original O.P. is referred to as “Electricity Board”).
2. The complainant has filed this appeal against the order of the District Forum dated 24.2.2004 dismissing the complaint of the complainant as it appears at the threshold.
3. It is noticed that the complainant approached the District Forum alleging deficiency on the part of the Electricity Board in demanding exorbitant consumption charges for supply made available to the complainant.
4. It appears that the complainant also moved interim application before the District Forum as it was threatened by the Electricity Board of disconnection of his electric supply.
5. It is noticed that at the stage of entertainment of the interim application itself, the District Forum has proceeded to dismiss the complaint.
6. On perusal of the impugned order, it is noticed that the District Forum was persuaded to dismiss the complaint with a view that the issue raised by the complainant in their complaint pertains to fixation of Tariff by the Electricity Board and referring to the judgments of the National Commission mentioned in paragraph 4 of the impugned judgment in the case of U.P.S.E.B. and Others v. M/s. Anand Cane Crushers and Fulchand Aggarwal v. Bihar S.E.B and Others, proceeded to dismiss the complaint as being not amenable to its jurisdiction.
7. We have reservation as far as reasonings which persuaded the District Forum to take view as it is done.
8. However, as will be pointed out herein, for that matter, even otherwise the complaint of the complainant will not be amenable as consumer dispute.
9. The complaint herein has been filed on 15.10.2003 i.e., after the amendment of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, were brought into force with effect from 15.3.2003 in which various amendments came to be introduced in Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(d)(ii) has also been amended.
We reproduce the said Sub-clause (ii) here in below—
“Hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and include 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 payments, 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.”
10. The explanation “but does not include persons who avails of such services for any Commercial purposes” was introduced which was not there prior to amendment of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
11. The amendment if one reads, it makes clear that the hirer of services happens to be a Commercial Entity/Organisation, then it cannot avail of remedy under Consumer Protection Act, 1986—before Consumer Fora.
12. Coming to the case in hand, it is noticed that the complainant is a Corporate Entity registered under Companies Act and if one reads the averments as such appearing in the complaint, the same clearly spell out the same is a Commercial Entity.
13. It, therefore, emerges that that complainant is a Commercial Entity have hired the services from the Electricity Board and in view of the amendment noticed hereinabove, the dispute as filed as Consumer dispute before the Consumer Fora will not be maintainable and as such entertainable.
14. Therefore, for different reasoning than assigned by the District Fora, we proceed to confirm the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint.
ORDER
1. Appeal stands dismissed.
2. No order as to cost.
3. At this stage Mr. Naidu after obtaining instruction from Mr. Rajesh Chau
