West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd vs May Flower Buildcon Pvt. Ltd

The complainant May Flower Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. applied for grant of a commercial electricity connection, depositing the requisite application fee for the purpose. The petitioner asked the complainant/respondent to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,74,156/- which were dues outstanding against the previous occupant of the premises in which the electricity connection was sought by the complainant. The previous occupant was Uma Cold Storage. The complainant however refused to pay the dues outstanding against Uma Cold Storage on the ground that there was no nexus between it and the previous occupant since electricity connection was not released to it. The complainant therefore approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint.

The complaint was resisted by the petitioner company inter-alia on the ground that the complainant was not its consumer. On merits, it was alleged that Uma Cold Storage had not paid the dues outstanding against the electricity connection which it had taken in the premises in which electricity had been sought by the complainant and therefore the connection could not be released to it.

The District Forum vide its order dated 16.08.2011 directed the petitioner to provide the connection to the complainant on completion of the formalities.

Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner company approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 12.02.2015, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

The complainant/respondent is a company as is evident from its name and admittedly it had applied for a commercial and industrial connection. Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act to the extent it is relevant, excludes from the ambit of the term ''consumer'', a person who hires or avails services for a commercial purpose. Since the complainant was seeking electricity for a commercial purpose, it can hardly be disputed that it was seeking to hire or avail the services of the petitioner company for a commercial purpose. Consequently, the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. As a result, the District Forum did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant.

For the reasons stated herein above, the impugned orders are set aside and the complaint is dismissed. It is however made clear that the dismissal of the complaint will not come in the way of the complainant availing such remedy as may be available to it in law, before a forum other than a consumer forum. The revision petition stands disposed of. Revision Petition disposed of.