S.A.RAJA vs BOARD

IN this complaint complainant seeks the following reliefs : "(a) directing the opposite parties to give separate service connection to the said two Wind Mills at once; (b) directing the opposite parties to pay Rs. 80,00,000/- being the compensation towards the loss caused to the complainant till date; (c) directing the opposite parties to pay at the rate of Rs. 2,20,000/- per month from the date of this complaint to the date of service connection towards future loss; (d) directing the opposite parties to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards the costs of this proceeding; and (e) for such other reliefs as deem fit and proper to this Hon''ble Committee and thereby render justice."

APART from the fact complex questions of both law and facts arise in the case for which this National Commission is not the right Tribunal to adjudicate upon, we are of the view that the petitioner is not a consumer to invoke the jurisdiction of the National Commission. One thing we may also note that earlier the complaint was filed in the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which was dismissed as withdrawn on 12.2.2001. The order of the State Commission which is annexed with the complaint does not show under what circumstance it came to be withdrawn except that it was on the statement made by Counsel for the complainant. Once having been invoked the jurisdiction of the State Commission and withdrawing the complaint without any apparent reason, a complainant cannot invoke again the jurisdiction of the National Commission. We asked learned Counsel for the complainant as to under what circumstances he made the statement before the State Commission, withdrawing the complaint. The answer was that in that complaint the amount claimed was Rs. 20.00 lakhs and during the pendency of the complaint further damages accrued every month which made the complainant to withdraw the complaint before the State Commission. This appears to us rather strange statement to make. A statement of the complainant is believed to be correct. Under a certain policy of the State of Tamil Nadu, it agreed in effect to purchase electricity from H.T. consumers who were also having captive generating plant. There will be excess generation of electricity in those plants not required for use. The arrangement was that a bank would be established under which electricity generated by H.T. consumers would come in the lines of the Electricity Board of the State Government from where captive consumers could also draw the electricity. State Government would charge commission @ 2% of the energy generated by the captive consumers. In case the energy generated more than the requirement of the captive consumers that could be adjusted in the following months and if energy drawn from the lines of the Electricity Board was more than that generated by the consumers they would be billed for that. Complaint is that complainant purchased two wind mills of NEPC which earlier was having the arrangement with the Electricity Department. No consideration so far has been passed from the complainant to the opposite parties which are - (i) The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, represented by its Secretary, (ii) The Chief Engineer (Member) (Generation), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, (iii) The Superintending Engineer, ''Wind Form Project'', Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, and (iv) The Special Officer, ''Wind Energy Development Cell'' TNEB Complex, Maharajapuram, Tirunelveli. From the complaint it is not clear as to how the complainant would prove damages being suffered by him @ Rs. 2,20,000/- per month. If we see the definition of consumer as given in Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 2 as under- "2(1)(d) 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; [Explanation-For the purpose of Sub-clause (i) "commercial purpose" does not include use by a consumer of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self employment;]"

of the Consumer Protection Act, it is apparent that the complainant is not a consumer. Complainant is not buying any goods and is also not hiring or availing any services from the opposite parties for consideration. We, therefore, dismissed this complaint and leave the complainant to seek its remedy elsewhere. Complaint dismissed.