M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

FA No. 722 / 2017.

Adhikshan Yantri, M.P. Pashchim Kshetra Vidhyut Vitaran Company Ltd. Mandsaur & Anr. …. APPELLANTS.

Versus Mohanlal s/o Kanhaiyalal Porwal, R/o Rampura Darwaja, Garoth, District Mandsaur (M.P.). …. RESPONDENT.

As per Shri Justice Shantanu Kemkar, (oral) :

Date of O R D E R

Order

19.10.2022 Shri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant.

None for the respondent.

Heard.

2. This appeal arises out of the order dated 27.12.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mandsaur (for short the ‘District Commission’) in CC No.132 /2015 whereby the District Commission while rejecting the plea of the appellant / opposite party to the effect that the respondent / complainant is not covered under the term ‘consumer’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 allowed the complaint and set-aside the alleged recovery sought to be made by the appellant / opposite party on the basis of audit objection.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant at the out-set has referred to the pleadings of the complaint and has stated that undisputedly the electricity connection was of 8 H.P. and was non-domestic electricity connection for industrial purpose. He also pointed out that in the pleadings there is absolutely no mention in regard to the fact that the electricity connection has been obtained by him for running a business by way of self-employment to earn his livelihood. According to him even in the absence of such plea being there, the District Commission while deciding the issue no.1 has committed an error while holding that there is a relationship of consumer and service provider between the appellant and the respondent.

4. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contention made by learned counsel for the appellant, we have perused the pleadings and affidavits filed by the parties. On going through the same it is clear that there is absolutely no whisper in the complaint made by the respondent / complainant to the effect that the business which is running by use of the electricity connection is by way of self-employment to earn his livelihood. In the circumstances, the District Commission has committed an error in proceedings in the matter and deciding the complaint as aforesaid.

5. As a result, we set-aside the impugned order passed by the District Commission.

6. The appeal stands allowed.

(Justice Shantanu Kemkar) ( S. S. Bansal ) (Dr. Monika Malik)

PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER