Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Ashok Bhan, President and S.K. Naik, Member
MOHAMMAD HASEEB AHMAD - Appellant
Versus
MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. - Respondents
Revision Petition No. 2043 of 2006 from Order dated 20.7.2006 in Appeal No. 1170 of 2005 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra
Decided on : 21-05-2010
Mr. S.K. Sharma and Mr. C.M. Sharma, Advocates, for the Appellant; Mr. Ajit Bhasme, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is that buying of goods and services for running commercial activity stands excluded from the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, after the amendment of Section 2(l)(d)(ii) with effect from 15.3.2003.
Headnote:
Electricity Connection - Commercial Purpose - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(l)(d)(ii), Section 2(l)(o) - The court discussed the definition of consumer under Section 2(1)(d) and the exclusion of services availed for commercial purpose under Section 2(l)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The court also highlighted the amendment to Section 2(l)(d)(ii) and the exception created by the Explanation to the same section. The judgment referenced previous decisions and emphasized that buying of goods and services for running commercial activity stands excluded from the purview of the Act after the amendment of Section 2(l)(d)(ii) with effect from 15.3.2003.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was given an electricity connection for running a stone crusher and regularly paid the electricity bills. However, a bill was sent without proper reading/record of the meter, and the electricity supply was disconnected due to non-payment. The petitioner filed a Complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, which was dismissed. The State Commission also dismissed the Appeal primarily on the grounds that the electricity connection was taken for commercial purpose and criminal proceedings were pending against the petitioner for theft of energy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Complaint was not maintainable as the petitioner had taken the electricity connection for commercial purpose and services availed for commercial activities were excluded from the definition of consumer under Section 2(l)(d) of the Act. The court also noted that the petitioner had been acquitted of the charge of theft of energy by the Criminal Court, but the respondent had not proved the theft of energy by leading any independent evidence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's Complaint was maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, considering the purpose of the electricity connection and the exclusion of services availed for commercial purpose from the definition of consumer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the definition of consumer under Section 2(1)(d) and the exclusion of services availed for commercial purpose under Section 2(l)(d)(ii) of the Act. The court also emphasized the amendment to Section 2(l)(d)(ii) and the exception created by the Explanation to the same section.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Revision Petition, endorsing the findings laid down by the State Commission that the Complaint was not maintainable.
ORDER
Ashok Bhan, President - As per the averments made in the Complaint, complainant/petitioner was given electricity connection by the respondent-Board for running a stone crusher in the year 1994. It is stated that the petitioner'started the stone crusher in the year 1995 and regularly paid the electricity bills till 2003. Petitioner received a bill from the respondent which was sent without proper reading/ record of the meter. Being suspicious, petitioner lodged an oral complaint with the Electricity Authorities but in vain. Thereafter, petitioner lodged a complaint with the Authorities in the year 2004 stating that the electric line was not working but the concerned Electricity Authorities, on 22.2.2004, replaced the non-functional meter of the petitioner in his absence and lodged a complaint with the Police stating, inter alia, that the petitioner was indulging in theft of electricity for the past 3 years. Petitioner received a bill of Rs. 4,63,332 on 25.2.2004, which was not paid. Due to non-payment, the electricity supply of the petitioner was disconnected without prior notice. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed the Complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Parbhani and Hingoli (for short the District Forum ).
2. On being served, respondent-Board filed its Written Statement stating that the petitioner is not a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act') as the electricity connection had been taken for commercial purpose, i.e., for running a stone crushing machine. That the complainant was stealing the electricity and the criminal proceedings were still pending and, therefore, the Consumer Forum was not competent to try the Complaint. That the electricity connection was disconnected due to non-payment of the bill which had been issued to the complainant. Thus, denying the allegations made in the Complaint, it was prayed that the Complaint be dismissed.
3. District Forum, after taking into consideration, the pleadings as well as the evidence led by the parties, dismissed the Complaint.
4. Aggrieved by the Order passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commision, Maharashtra (for short the State Commission ), which has been dismissed primarily on two grounds. Firstly, that the Complaint was not maintainable as the petitioner had taken the electricity connection for commercial purpose, i.e., for running a stone crusher; that the electricity connection was taken to carrying out commercial activity designed to earn profit and services availed of for commercial activities were excluded from the definition of consumer under Section 2(l)(d) of the Act. Secondly, that the Complaint was not maintainable as the respondent-Board had initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioner for theft of energy, which were still going on.
5. Being aggrieved, petitioner/complainant has filed the present Revision Petition.
6. Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a copy of the Order of District and Sessions Court, Parbhani in Special Case No. 51 of 2006 dated 26.7.2007 by which the petitioner has been acquitted of the charge of theft of energy. The stand taken by the respondent-Board in the Written Statement before the District was that the Complaint was not tenable as a case of power theft had been lodged against the petitioner which was still pending. Respondent has not led any independent evidence to show that the petitioner was guilty of theft of energy. Since, the petitioner has been acquitted of the charge of theft by the Criminal Court, we need not examine the point regarding the maintainability of the Complaint on the ground of theft of energy as the respondent has not proved the theft of energy by leading any independent evidence.
7. Counsel for the petitioner, relying upon a Judgment of this Commission in Harsolia Motors v. National Insurance Company Limited, First Appeal No. 159 of 2004, dated 1.4.2
