This revision is directed against the order of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (in short, “the State Commission) dated 12.7.2016 in first appeal No.54/2016 whereby the State Commission concurred with the finding of the District Forum Nanded and dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner/complainant. 2. Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the petitioner/complainant filed a consumer complaint before the
District Forum Nanded alleging that the complainant obtained electricity connection from the opposite party for running the cold storage. The complainant was being charged for electricity consumed as per the agriculture tariff. However, later on the opposite party issued electricity bills by charging tariff at industrial rate. The complainant filed an applications protesting against the excessive charge as per the industrial rate. The respondent No.2 on consideration of the representation of the complainant issued a letter dated 3.8.2011 to respondent No.1 calling upon him to assess the electricity bill of the complainant from the date of application as per agriculture cold storage tariff. It is alleged that despite of the said recommendation the previous bills were not corrected. This led to filing of the consumer complaint. The complainant, alongwith the consumer complaint, filed an application for condonation of delay of 17 days. The said delay was condoned. However, at the time of final arguments, it was noticed that the dispute raised was in respect of electricity charges recovered on 17.12.2008 but the complaint was filed after five years on 13.8.2015 showing the delay of only 17 days. 3. The District Forum taking note of inordinate delay of more than six years in filing of the complaint dismissed the complaint on the ground of limitation. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum preferred an appeal. The State Commission on consideration of the pleadings and the record did not find any fault with the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. Being aggrieved the petitioner has filed the revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the impugned orders of the Fora below are not sustainable for the reason that the Fora below have failed to appreciate that actually cause of action for filing of the instant complaint arose after 3.8.2011 when the opposite party failed to reassess the bill as per agriculture gold storage tariff pursuant to the recommendation of Executive Engineer, City Division, Nanded vide his letter dated 3.8.2011 addressed to the Sub-Executive Engineer, M.S.E.D. Company Ltd. In support of this contention, learned counsel has drawn my attention to the relevant letter dated 3.8.2011. 6. Admittedly, the bill as per the industrial tariff rates was charged from the complainant in the year 2008. If at all the respondent was aggrieved of bill based on industrial tariff, his cause of action commenced in the year 2008 when he was served with the bill and the amount was paid. Therefore, in view of Section 24 (A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1996 the consumer complaint to be within limitation should have been filed within two years of the cause of action i.e. by 17.12.2010. Admittedly, the consumer complaint was filed by the complainant in October, 2015 i.e. almost five years after the expiry of the period of limitation. Therefore, the concurrent finding of the Fora below dismissing the complaint time barred cannot be faulted. 7. Otherwise also, the consumer complaint was liable to be dismissed because the complainant does not fall within the definition of “Consumer” as envisaged under Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The relevant provision reads as under: - "consumer" means any person who— (i) … … … … (ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who 'hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes; Explanation.— For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment” 8. On reading of the above, it is clear that a person who hires or avails of services for commercial purpose is excluded from the definition of consumer. Admittedly, the electricity connection was taken by the complainant for a cold storage. Running of a cold storage obviously is a commercial venture. Therefore, it is obvious that the electricity connection was taken by the complainant for commercial purpose. As such, in view of the exception carved out in the definition of consumer, the complainant is not a consumer. Thus, he did not have any locus standi to maintain consumer complaint. The complaint, therefore, is liable to be dismissed on this count. 9. In view of the discussion above, I do not find any material irregularity in the impugned order, which may call for interference in exercise of the revisonal jurisdiction. Revision petition is dismissed. | 
