IMPORTANT POINT
In order to avail benefit of explanation clause complainant required to plead and prove that he running flour mill exclusively for earning livelihood by way of self-employment.

1. 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