MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. Vs. MARWADI RAJASTHAN EDUCATION SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 15.2.2010 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (hereafter, 'the State Commission'). By this order, the State Commission upheld the order dated 29.7.2010 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Latur (hereafter, 'the District Forum') and dismissed the appeal of the petitioners.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that the dispute is essentially that of the nature (i.e., commercial or otherwise) of the electrical power connection in use at a swimming pool being run by the complainant/respondent education society. It is not at all in question that at the time of obtaining the connection, at least for the premises of the society associated with the swimming pool (photocopy of the application for electricity supply annexed at page 63 of the paper book), the purpose of the connection was stated clearly to be commercial, i.e., "C -Type". Moreover, in the course of hearing, learned Counsel for the respondent society confirmed that the swimming pool was being run by charging fees on commercial lines for use of the facility by the members of the public. This being the initial position, there is no question of the nature of the electrical connection being unilaterally changed at any point of time either by the consumer or by the electricity supply provider. The entire discussion regarding applicability of the L.P.T. -G (General Motive Power) Tariff, etc., is clearly superfluous because the respondent was admittedly running the swimming pool on commercial lines and hence using the electricity connection in question for commercial purposes, could not qualify ab initio to be a "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1996 ("the Act"). This being the legal position, the complaint filed by the respondent before the District Forum was not maintainable at all. Accordingly, the orders of both the Fora below are patently without jurisdiction and need to be set aside.