RAMESH KUMAR ROHILLA Vs. NORTH DELHI POWER LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order dated 4.5.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (V) CSC Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi -110088 in Complaint Case No. 480/2010, Sh. R.K. Rohilla v. North Delhi Power Ltd., Delhi. The appellant/complainant Sh. R.K. Rohilla, owner, of the office area 36 sq. mts. and number 208, IInd Floor, Bhanot Bhawan, Flat B -1/2, Commercial Complex, Azadpur, Delhi, is the consumer having NDPL's permanent electricity meter connection (non -domestic light) K. No. 36204270979T in electricity district of Model Town, Delhi. The OP/respondent, NDPL is service provider. Sh. R.K. Rohilla filed consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. During the course of the proceedings an application was moved by the respondent/O.P. raising a preliminary objection to the effect that complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act) and that the complaint was not maintainable. The complainant/appellant filed objection against the application of the OP/respondent. Learned District Forum after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the complainant/appellant was not a consumer within the definition of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and therefore the complaint was not maintainable and was therefore dismissed. The complainant felt aggrieved and preferred this appeal inter -alia, on the following main grounds, besides the others:

(2.) THE O.P./respondent filed reply. In its reply the O.P./respondent maintained that there was no infirmity in the impugned order dated 4.5.2011 passed by the learned District Forum. The Judgment was elaborate and well discussed. The appellant/complainant was admittedly using non -domestic connection at a commercial complex in a Bhanot Bhawan and was drawing electricity though a 3 phase meter. By no stretch of imagination can this use be called for own livelihood and not for commercial purpose. As a matter of fact the appellant indulged in Forum shopping by filing the present appeal.

(3.) IN the present case the use of electricity is not intended to generate profit directly or indirectly. Therefore, it could not directly serve any commercial purpose. The appellant/complainant is a 'consumer' within the meaning of the Act. In our considered view this case is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in Harsolia Motors v. National Insurance Company Ltd., : I (2005) CPJ 27 NC. The Hon'ble National Commission in this case clearly held that it is apparent that even taking wide meaning of the words 'for any commercial purpose' it would mean that goods purchased or services hired should be used in any activity directly intended to generate profit. Profit is the main aim of commercial purpose. But, in a case where goods purchased or services hired in an activity which is not directly intended to generate profit it would not be a commercial purpose. It was further held in view of the matter, a person who takes insurance policy to cover the envisaged risk does not take the policy for commercial purpose. Policy is only for indemnification of actual loss. It is not intended to generate profit likewise the use of the electricity in the present case is intended not to directly generate profit. It is simply to facilitate the working in the office of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant shall be taken to be a 'consumer' within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.