1. Case of the complainant is that he was running a manufacturing unit of Bakelite electronic switches using Sui gas supplied by the respondent company. He being a bonafide consumer had paid all the dues but the respondent company has disconnected the connection without any reason which has badly affected his business of manufacturing Bakelite Electronic Switches.
2. The learned counsel for the complainant was asked to advance arguments on the maintainability of the case as to whether the complainant falls within the definition of the consumer as defined in section 2(c) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 as well as the limitation to file the complaint. It was contended by the learned counsel that case of the complainant falls under (ii) of clause (c) of section 2 of Act, 2005 as he has hired services for the consideration which have been proved as defective.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel. Subsection 1 of clause (c) has clearly defined the consumer a person or entity who buys any product for a consideration. In this case complainant obtained/purchased the product "Sui gas", however, in the remaining portion of the clause referred above it has further been clarified that a person who has obtained the product for any commercial purpose does not fall within the definition of consumer. In Para 1 of the complaint it is categorically mentioned that complainant was running a business of manufacturing of Bakelite Electronic Switches and gas was used in the said manufacturing unit. It is nowhere claimed by the complainant that he was a self employed person. If for the sake of arguments it is admitted too, that it is the case of hiring services even than the qualifying clause mentioned above is applicable mutatis mutandis. Therefore, I am of the clear view that complainant is not consumer as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 2005. Furthermore in Para 3 of the complaint it also described that in September 2009 the supply was disconnected and the meter was removed by the respondent. The instant plaint was filed after 03 years and 04 months, therefore, the case is badly barred by limitation as defined in section 28(4) of the Act, 2005. During the course of arguments counsel for the complainant pointed out that the complainant was served by the respondent a bill amounting to Rs. 130000/- after removal of the gas meter for which respondents have filed a suit of recovery of the said amount which is pending before the Civil Court in which the complainant has contested the above said matter. Surprisingly this fact has not been mentioned in the plaint. Up short of the discussion that this complaint is not maintainable for reasons mentioned above which is dismissed. File be consigned to record after due completion.