For the Complainant : Mr.J.D.Talekar, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties no.1 to 5 :
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Per :- Mr. J. L. Deshpande, President Place : Bandra
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
::::: COMMON JUDGMENT :::::
Facts giving rise to this complaint may be stated, in brief, as follows :-
In all these complaints, the Complainant –Mr. Brijesh P.Upadhyay and the Opposite parties are the same. The Complainant has received electricity supply from the Opposite parties under the Meter Number mentioned in each of the complaint. According to the Complainant, the Opposite party raised demand of excess amount with the allegations that the meter was tampered. The Complainant alleges that there was no tampering of the meter and the allegations are false. The Complainant has sought direction as against the Opposite party no.1 – Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited to not to recover the amount mentioned in the bill from the Complainant.
2 At the time of hearing, we expressed doubt about maintainability of the complaint, since the services were availed for commercial purposes. We have heard learned advocate for the Complainant. We have gone through the complaint and documents annexed to the same. We have also gone through the Citations relied upon by advocate for the Complainant.
3 According to section-2(1)(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, person who availed services from the Opposite party for commercial purposes does not become consumer. The explanation below section-2(1)(d) is in the form of exception which shows that the person who has bought the goods or availed the services exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment shall become consumer.
4 In the present case, the Complainant in paragraph no.1 of the complaint has admitted that he is carrying of the business of manufacturing of Plastic Granule. The Complainant is having Industrial Electric Connection under particular meter. During the course of hearing when we asked the Complainant about number of the workers engaged by him, the Complainant replied that there are about 7-8 workers engaged by him. In each of the complaint, meter number is mentioned and those numbers are separate which shows that the Complainant is doing the business on availing electricity from the Opposite parties under three different meters. This shows that the Complainant is not running the business as self-employment for earning his livelihood.
5 As mentioned above, section-2(1)(d) explanation saves such activity which is for self-employment for earning livelihood. Word “Self-employment” has raised in section-2(1)(d) explanation has been explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court at the case of Cheema Engineering Services Versus Rajan Singh, VI (1998) SLT 20 = (1997) 1 SCC 131. It was observed :
“The word self-employment is not defined. Therefore, it is matter of evidence. Unless there is evidence and on consideration it is concluded that the machine was used only for self-employment to his livelihood without a sense of commercial purpose by employing on regular basis employees or workmen for trade in the manufacture and sale of bricks, it would be for self-employment. Manufacturer and sale of bricks in a commercial way may also be to earn livelihood, but merely earning livelihood in commercial business does not mean that it is not for commercial purpose. Self-employment connotes altogether a different concept, namely, he alone uses the machinery purchased for the purpose of manufacture by employing himself been working out or producing the goods for earning his livelihood. He includes the members of the family. Whether the respondent is using the machine exclusively by himself and the members of his family for preparation, manufacture and sale of bricks or whether he employed any workmen and if so, how many, are matters of evidence. The burden is on the respondent to prove them”.
6 As against this learned advocate for the Complainant has relied upon the judgment Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.3364/2007. In that case, the Complainant was running Attachakki. In Revision Petition No.3813/2007, the Complainant was doing the work of Aluminum Molding but in that case, the Complainant and his family members were involved in action. In Revision Application No.3337/2007, there was the evidence that the Complainant was doing the work of Electro Plating to earn his livelihood.
7 In the present case, the Complainant has not alleged that he was running his unit for earning livelihood as Self-employment.
8 In the above situation, the Complainant does not become a consumer under section-2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.
::::: ORDER :::::
1 Complaint is rejected under Section-12(3) of
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, being not admitted.
2 Certified copy of this order to be furnished to the
Complainant, free of costs, as per rule.
