This revision has been filed by the petitioner Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. against the order dated 06.05.2014 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in Appeal No.249 of 2013.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant has filed a consumer complaint bearing No.460 of 2011 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sikar, (in short ‘the District Forum’) against the petitioner stating that due to negligence of the opposite party his buffalo died due to electrocution. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner / opposite party by stating that the complainant was not a consumer of the opposite party as the electric connection was in the name of the grand-father of the complainant Mr. Krishnaram and even after his death the connection has not been transferred to the name of the complainant.  Complaint was resisted by the opposite party, however, the District Forum vide its order dated 15.02.2013 dismissed the complaint.

3.      Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant preferred an appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission vide its order dated 6.5.2014 allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party/petitioner to pay Rs.50,000/- along with 9% p.a. interest from 1.9.2011 in addition to a compensation of Rs.5,000/-.

4.      Hence the present revision petition.

5.      Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.  Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the complainant is a grandson of Mr. Krishnaram in whose name connection still exists.  No application has been given to the petitioner for transfer of the electric connection in his name. Hence, there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the petitioner/opposite party.  Accordingly, it has been asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant is not a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the issue was raised in the written statement, however, this issue has not been considered by the State Commission.

6.      On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent stated that it is true that the connection is in the name of grandfather of the complainant, however, the complainant is the beneficiary of this connection, therefore, under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, respondent will also be considered as a consumer.  He further stated that the complainant is enjoying the benefits of this connection as beneficiary from the period when his grandfather was alive.  In fact the complaint was filed with his knowledge and consent.  Thus, order of the State Commission is perfectly in order.

7.      I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record.  It is true that electric connection is in the name of grandfather of the complainant, however, they were living together in the family and thus, every family member of the family enjoyed the benefits of the electric connection.  Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads as under:-

 “Consumer means any person who-

(i)      buys any goods 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 user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(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 purpose] [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 purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment]”

8.      Thus, with the approval of Mr. Krishnaram in whose name electric connection exists, the complainant was enjoying the benefit of the service of the opposite party as beneficiary.  It is not the case of the opposite party that the complainant was not paying charges for the electric connection, hence the complainant would be considered beneficiary of the service of the opposite party as consideration is being paid by the complainant.  Hence, the complainant would be considered as a consumer under the provision of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  As this was the only point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no further discussion in the matter is required.  Consequently, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 06.05.2014 of the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission.  Accordingly, the revision petition No.3203 of 2014 is dismissed.