R. M. Lodha, J. - (1.) These two appeals by special leave, involving common questions, were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.
(2.) As the principal arguments have been advanced in Civil Appeal No. 1879/2003, we take up the facts of that appeal which are thus, briefly put. M/s. Ashok Iron Works Private Limited (for short, 'the company') is a Private Limited Company and engaged in the activity of manufacture of iron products. The company applied for the supply of electrical energy. (2500 KVA) to the Karnataka Electricity Board (now Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation and hereinafter referred to as 'KPTC'). The application made by the Company was cleared by the Single Window agency and supply of electric energy 1500 KVA was sanctioned. The company is said to have deposited an amount of Rs. 8,40,000/- on 1st February, 1991 as per demand. KPTC did not commence supply of electricity as agreed upon and that necessitated the company to approach Karnataka High Court for a direction to KPTC to supply the sanctioned energy. On 16th April, 1992, the High Court directed KPTC to supply electrical energy as per sanction forthwith and subsequently, time for supply of electricity was extended by the High Court upto 21st July, 1992. KPTC raised an additional demand of Rs. 8,38,000/- from the company and further demand in the sum of Rs. 1,34,000/-. The company is said to have deposited the said amount. However, the actual supply of the power commenced in the month of November, 1992. The company accordingly filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, 'the Act, 1986') before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Belgaum claiming damages in the sum of Rs. 99,900/- for delay in supply of electricity. The complaint was contested by KPTC, and, inter alia, preliminary objection was raised that complaint was not maintainable as the complainant was engaged in commercial activity and electricity being goods; sale of goods to a commercial consumer for a commercial purpose was outside the scope of the Act, 1986.
(3.) As there were several complaints wherein identical objection pertaining to the maintainability of such complaints was involved, all these complaints were taken up and disposed of together by the District Forum by a common order dated 10th September, 1993. The District Forum was persuaded by the objection raised by the KPTC and it held that the complaints were not maintainable.;