AMAR DASS THAREJA vs D.E.S.U.

THIS appeal has been filed by the complainant against the order of the District Forum No. 1, dismissing the complaint on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer.

BRIEFLY the facts are that the complainant is the owner of House No. 5439, situated in Karol Bagh, New Delhi. It consists of three floors, out of which ground floor and first floor arc being used for commercial purposes and second floor for residential purposes. The complainant has been given two electric connections namely No. 56832 and No. K 56833 in those premises and the electricity consumed by them is being charged @ 89 paise per unit. However, the respondent from March, 1986 started sending the bills @ Re. 1 per unit. It is alleged that the respondent has illegally charged the complainant @ Re. 1 per unit. Consequently, he filed a complaint for the refund of a sum of Rs. 1,770.41 regarding K No. 56833 and Rs. 5,004.60 alongwith security deposit regarding K No. 56832. He has also claimed interest @ 15% P.A. The complaint was contested by the respondent inter-alia on the ground, that the complainant was not a consumer as the electric connections were being used by him for commercial purposes. The learned District Forum accepted that plea and dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant was not a consumer.

The only question that arises for determination in the appeal is, whether the complainant is a consumer. The word ''Consumer'' has been defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act which reads as follows:- (d) "Consumer" means any person who,- (i) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (ii) hires 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 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;

THE word ''Service'' has been defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act and it reads as follows:- "Service" means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board of lodging or both, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service; From the definition of the word ''Service'' it is clear that the ''service'' includes the facilities provided in connection with supply of electrical or other energy for consideration. It is not disputed that the respondent was entitled to charge for electric energy to be consumed by the appellant. Therefore, we are of the view that the respondent is rendering service in supplying electricity to the appellant. Now the question to be determined is, whether a person who hires services for commercial purposes is a consumer. According to the definition of the word ''consumer'', if service is hired by a person for any purpose, he becomes a consumer. In the case of the goods if those are purchased for commercial purposes by a person, he ceases to be a consumer. However, no such distinction has been made in the case of a hirer of service. We are, therefore, of the view that the finding of the learned District Forum, that the complainant has been given the electric connection for commercial use and therefore, he does not fall within the purview of the definition of the word ''Consumer'' as defined in the Act, is not correct.

FOR the aforesaid reasons we accept the appeal, set-aside the order of the District FORum and remand the case to it for deciding the complaint on merits. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.