ORDERS

        The present complaint is filed by the two persons by name one H.S.Vinod Kumar and H.S.Pradeep Kumar as Directors of M/s Ekadanta Hotel Pvt. Ltd. for a direction to the opposite party not to disconnect the electricity connection to the schedule property and not to proceed further on the alleged notice dated 06.01.2017 and to pay damages of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainants.

After hearing advocate for complainant, this matter is set down for orders on admission.

The advocate for complainant submitted I.A.No.4 seeking amendment of the complaint for introduction of para 4(a), which roads as following:-  “It is submitted by the complainant that the income so derived from the lodging and hotel business is the only source of income for the complainant and their family members for the livelihood and it is the self employment for the complainant”.

Counsel representing the complainant submits that the complainants are running the lodging business in the schedule property under the name and style of Hotel Ganesh Palace for which they have taken trade license from Mysuru City Corporation, which was duly renewed from year to year.  Electricity is the basis necessity in order to run the hotel and lodging business, there is no arrears of electricity charges.  But, the opposite party has issued a notice dated 06.01.2017 with a direction to pay arrears of Rs.8,89,170/-.  The electricity supply to the complainant was 63 KVA and it is for commercial purpose not for any other purpose including earning for livelihood.  The complainants did not plead that they are running business for their livelihood.  Thereby, I.A.4 submitted seeking amendment.  But if this amendment is allowed, definitely, the very object of section 2(d)(ii) will be defeated.  By plain reading of the complaint clearly establishes that the complainants are running the commercial establishment and it cannot be said as a business for earning livelihood.  Thereby, the application filed by the complainants under order 6 rule 17 CPC cannot be entertained since it will take away the very object of the statute i.e. section 2 (d)(ii) of C.P.Act.  Thereby, I.A.No.4 filed by the complainant is liable to be rejected. 

Since the complainant is the commercial establishment, the complainant cannot be termed as “consumer” as defined under section 2(d)(i) or (ii) of C.P.Act.  Thereby, present complaint is not maintainable.  Hence, the following order.

ORDER

I.A.4 filed by the complainants under order 6 rule 17 CPC is hereby rejected.

The complaint is dismissed as not maintainable.

(H.M.SHIVAKUMARASWAMY)

PRESIDENT

(M.V.BHARATHI)                              (DEVAKUMAR.M.C.)

    MEMBER                                             MEMBER