Gupta Plastic Industries vs B.S.E.S. YAMUNA POWER LIMITED

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') is directed against order dated 30.7.2003, passed by District Forum (North East), in Complaint Case No. 323/2003 entitled M/s. Gupta Plastic Industries v. Assistant Finance Officer, B.S.E.S. Yamuna Power Limited, Nand Nagri, Delhi.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. THE appellant, M/s. Gupta Plastic Industries, through its sole proprietor Shri Sushil Kumar, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum against the respondent alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. That complaint, filed by the appellant, has been dismissed by the learned District Forum vide impugned order on the ground that the appellant was not a ''consumer'' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. On the above ground the complaint, filed by the appellant, has been dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act.

We have heard the A/Representative of the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. As already stated, the complaint, filed by the appellant, before the District Forum has been dismissed on the ground that the appellant was not a ''consumer'' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. On the basis of documents/material on record it is an admitted fact that the dispute in the complaint, filed by the appellant, before the District Forum related to an industrial power connection bearing No. 612-148702/V/002, being utilized by M/s. Gupta Plastic Industries situated at 4649/A, Mandoli Road, Shahdara Delhi-32. As the service in question, regarding which the appellant had a grievance, was being availed of by the appellant for commercial purpose, the appellant decidedly is not a ''consumer'' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act and, therefore, no fault can be found with the finding of the learned District Forum on the above ground.

IN view of the position explained above, the present appeal, filed by the appellant, is devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. However, before concluding we would like to make it clear that the dismissal of the present appeal by us would not operate to the prejudice of the appellant in the matter of pursuing any other remedy that may be available to the appellant under any other law for the time being in force. We would also like to clarify that in case the appellant chooses to file a suit for the redressal of its grievance, being raised by it in the complaint, filed by it, before the District Forum, in that event the appellant would also be entitled to apply for the exclusion of the time spent by the appellant before the District Forum and before this Commission under Section 14 of the Limitation Act in view of the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in case Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC)=(1995) 3 SCC 583 and the subsequent decision of the Hon''ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 465/2001 entitled Prem Chand Jain v. Post Master, G.P.O. decided on 12.11.2002.

THE above mentioned appeal, filed by the appellant, stands disposed of in above terms. A copy of this order, as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room. Appeal disposed of.