ANAND PRAKASH GULATI Vs. S.D.O., DHBVNL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 18.10.2011, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in Miscellaneous Application No. 491/2011 in First Appeal No. 1090/2010, by which, the said miscellaneous application stood dismissed. The petitioners have also challenged the main order dated 14.07.2011, passed by the State Commission, by which the appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad dated 08.06.2009, allowing the said complaint, was accepted and the consumer complaint was dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant/petitioner has been carrying on the business of a general store in the name and style of M/s. Anand General Store at Faridabad since 1970. His grievance is that due to short circuit in the nearby transformer, a major fire broke out in the shop of the complainant, resulting in huge loss to him and for which, he prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs. 15 lakhs. In reply, however, the OP stated that no fire or sparking had occurred on the transformer of the OP on 29.05.2001 and hence, the complaint deserved to be dismissed. Since the OPs did not appear before the District Forum, the complaint was decided by the said Forum after proceeding ex-parte against the OPs. The District Forum concluded that leakage/sparking in electric wire passing outside the shop connected with the transformer was the cause of the fire. They directed the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs to the complainant as compensation. Being aggrieved against the said order, the OP/respondent challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission. The said Commission, vide impugned order, ordered that electricity energy was being used for commercial purpose and hence, the complainant did not fall within the definition of 'Consumer'. Accordingly, the State Commission ordered dismissal of the complaint. The respondent/complainant did not appear before the State Commission and was proceeded against ex-parte. The miscellaneous application no. 491/2011 was filed before the State commission by the complainant, requesting for setting aside the ex-parte order against them on the ground that they were never served in proceedings before the State Commission and hence, the order passed by them was not valid in the eyes of law. Vide the impugned order, the State Commission dismissed the said application. The petitioner/complainant is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition, challenging the order dated 14.07.2011, passed in the main appeal as well as the order dated 18.10.2011 passed in the miscellaneous application.

(3.) During arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that as stated in the complaint itself, the complainant had lost his total business and his source of earning as a result of the incident. The complainant was, therefore, within the definition of consumer, as this was his only source of income. The learned counsel has drawn attention to an order passed by this Commission in Haryana State Electricity Board & Anr. vs. Anand Medicos & Anr., 2003 SCC Online NCDRC 35, in which the National Commission held that if there was loss, because of short-circuiting of electric current in the shop premises, the matter could be decided by the consumer fora, rather than asking the parties to go to a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The learned counsel argued that in the present case as well, the matter should have been decided by the consumer fora itself, rather than asking the parties to go to the Civil Court.