ORDER

K.R. Radhakrishnan, Member—This is an appeal filed under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the opposite parties in C.C.No.122/2012 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (the District Commission for short). As per the order dated 29.06.2018, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand) as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) as costs of the complaint. They were further directed to adjust this amount to the future bills of the complainant from July, 2018 to December, 2018.

2. The brief details of the complaint are as follows:—

The complaint pertains to the inordinate delay in the installation of a transformer in the premises of the complainant. The complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and the electric connection was given to his building constructed for his livelihood by means of self-employment. An amount of Rs.2,40,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Thousand) was paid on 29.01.2011 for installing the transformer for giving electricity to the building. There was inordinate delay in the installation of the transformer which was charged only on 06.02.2012. Because of the delay in the installation of the transformer the complainant had to face lot of difficulties and suffered monetary loss. Hence, he filed the complaint claiming compensation for deficiency in service.

3. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version. Their contention was that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The building owned by the complainant is a three storeyed building having several rooms and he gets huge amount as rental income. As it is used for commercial purpose he cannot file a complaint before the Consumer forum. Considering that it was a big building having many connections it was proposed to install a 100 KVA transformer in the premises. It was agreed by the complainant and accordingly necessary sanction was obtained from the higher authorities. However, one of the tenants of the complainant objected to the installation of the transformer in front of his shop. He filed a civil suit also before the Munsiff Court, Chavakkadu. The delay was only because of the delay in finalising the location for installation of the transformer. There was no intentional delay on the part of the opposite parties. There is no deficiency in service on their part and hence they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of the complainant as PW1 and Exhibits P1 to P3 were marked on his side. RW1 was examined on the side of opposite party and Exhibits R1 to R4 were marked on their side. On the basis of the evidence adduced, the District Commission passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by the said order the opposite parties have filed this appeal.

5. Heard both sides and perused the records.

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent was not a consumer coming within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since the electric connection was availed for a commercial building rented out to tenants for earning profit. The appellants were ready to install the transformer and the respondent was informed to get a suitable space for installation of the transformer. Sufficient space was not there in the premises of the respondent. The space suggested by the respondent/complainant was not technically feasible. The delay in installing the transformer was because of the objections raised by the tenant of the complainant himself. The tenant who was running a jewellery shop in the building filed a civil suit before the Munsiff’s Court against the appellants and the respondent. The delay caused mainly due to the disputes between the respondent and the tenants in the building.

6. In the meantime, the respondent submitted a co