ORDER Dr. P.D. Shenoy, Member - This revision petition is filled against the interim orders passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla. The case of the complainant Shri Vivek Shalla, in brief is that he is the managing partner of the firm M/s Deluxe Enterprises manufacturing cotton yarn. According to him, he has established this firm for providing RP No. 3747 of 2009 him self-employment and to avail incentive promised for the entrepreneurs by the State Government for establishing an industry in the State. He is providing employment for more than 100 persons. A fire accident on the intervening night of 29 and 30th September 2005, it adversely affected the financial health of the firm. It is the allegation of the complainant that the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (in short the 'Board') started billing the complainant for the electricity charged against the well laid norms. The complainant was aggrieved by the alleged arbitrary billing by the Board between the period January 2002 to March 2007. Accordingly, he filled 47 complaints against the bills so arbitrarily raised. 2. It is the case of the complainant that, the Board defied the orders of the Ombudsman and harassed the complainant by not issuing the revised bills and by illegally disconnecting the electricity of his unit. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint before the State. 3. Commission Registered as OC No. 7 of 2007. It is the case of the complainant that in 1999 he paid to the Board an advance consumption deposit (ACO) to the tune of Rs. 5,31,181/- and also gave a bank guarantee of Rs. 8,14,500/- for period from November 2001 to March 2007. The Board raised electricity bills to the tune of Rs. 2,00,68,464 as per the following details : RP No. 3647 of 2009 on account of meter reading. On account of contract demand charges Rs. 1,41,17,691 Rs. 59,50,773/- and sundry charges. The complainant claims to have paid Rs. 1,41,17,691, but not the disputed bill for Rs. 59,50,773. Accordingly, he lodged 47 complaints before the Board against the alleged illegal and arbitrary 47 bills for Rs. 59,50,773/ - after depositing 50% of the disputed amount. During the pendency of the complaint, the Board disconnected the electricity on 29.06.2007. Therefore, he approached the State Commission. 1,41,17,691, but not the disputed bill for Rs. 59,50,773. Accordingly, he lodged 47 complaints before the Board against the alleged illegal and arbitrary 47 bills for Rs. 59,50,773/ - after depositing 50% of the disputed amount. During the pendency of the complaint, the Board disconnected the electricity on 29.06.2007. Therefore, he approached the State Commission. The relevant portion of the order of the State Commission dated 06.07.2007 reads as follows : "At this stage Shri Malhotra, learned Counsel for the complainant stated that because of the electricity supply having been stopped to the complainant's unit its production has come to a grinding halt. Further, according to him, there is dispute between the parties regarding demand raised against the complainant, part of which has already been deposited and the matter is being looked into by the Board authorities. He however stated that with a View to allow his client to run the unit, the matter being of urgent nature, by way of interim relief the opposite parties may be directed to restore the electricity connection of the complainant which according to him has been illegally disconnected. Subject to opposite side being heard in MA No. 827 of 2007, it is ordered that in the event of complainant depositing a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/ - by or before 17.07.2007, opposite parties shall restore the electricity connection as an interim measure. It is clarified that the electricity connection will be restored forth with out if this amount is not deposited before the date fixed i.e. 17.07.2007, opposite parties shall be entitled to again disconnect the same. It is further, clarified that so far current electricity bills for the consumption of electricity in the complainants unit are concerned, those shall be deposited by the complainant as and when those are raised by the opposite parties and this order will not come in the way of opposite parties of those being note paid as and when such bills are raised henceforth...." The complainant deposited Rs. 10 lakh in compliance of the above order. The complainant simultaneously pursued the remedy before the Electricity Ombudsman, who passed the following order on 05.08.2008. 10 lakh in compliance of the above order. The complainant simultaneously pursued the remedy before the Electricity Ombudsman, who passed the following order on 05.08.2008. The operative portion of which reads as follows: (1) The demand charges in case of all the above referred 41 disputed bills be reworked by the respondent Board and bills revised accordingly keeping in view the following factors :- a. Contract demand, where it has been filled up in Kw, as 495 Kw may be converted into Kva by taking average power factor of that month both for the purpose of demand charges as well as for penalty charges. b. Thereafter from the dates when the firm revised their contract demand as 600 Kva (07.08.2004), 500 Kva (22.09.2005) and 400 Kva (13.11.2006) against connected load of 896.10 Kw, these figures should be taken for working out demand charges. c. Only in cases where in a particular month, the Deluxe Enterprises v. H.P. State Electricity Board 521 maximum demand of the firm has exceeded the contracted demand as mentioned in a & b above, it should be charged the demand charges/ penalty charges on the basis of maximum demand for that month. d. For the bills pertaining to the tariff period 01.07.2005 to 31.03.2007, the demand charges have to be billed on the basis of 90% of contracted demand instead of 80% of contracted demand. e. Revised bills in all above 41 cases be raised to the petitioner within one month from the date of the order. It is the case of the complainant that he was always ready to pay the revised bill but the Board did not issue the revised bills as per the order of the Ombudsman. This revision petition is filed against the alleged contradictory interlocutory orders of the State Commission dated 24.07.2009, 18.08.2009 and 01.09.2009 in OC No. 07/2007. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri Dinesh Malhotra at some length. We have already quoted the operative portion of the order of the Om-budsman dated 05.08.2008 and also the interim order of the State Commission dated 06.07.2007. The appreciate the case better, it is proper to quote the subsequent orders of the State Commission in extensor. On 11.05.2009, the State Commission passed the following orders : "Reply to MA No. 784 of 2008 has been filed. The appreciate the case better, it is proper to quote the subsequent orders of the State Commission in extensor. On 11.05.2009, the State Commission passed the following orders : "Reply to MA No. 784 of 2008 has been filed. In the light of the facts detailed in this application learned Counsel for the opposite parties stated that some time may be allowed to him to seek instructions in the matter. Let him seek instructions as well as file rejoinder on the next date of hearing. Shri Vivek Bhalla, Partner of the Complainant as well as Secretary of Opposite party No.1 of the Board will remain present in person. Direction for presence of parties has been issued with a view to explore the possibility for an out of court settlement of this complaint keeping in view the stand of the complainant that he is ready and willing to pay the outstanding bills many, in case revised bills are issued in terms of the order passed by Electricity Ombudsman. Both the parties will come prepared after examining their respective records. Learned Counsel for the parties shall collect copy of this order free cost from thy Court Secretary during the course of day to-day. Be listed on 19.06.2009". Order dated 19.06.2009 read as follows "Parties have been identified as such by their respective Counsel. While arguing MA No. 784 of 200.8 Mr. Negi. learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that order contained in Annexure A 1 relied upon by the Ops has not been complied with as 47 revised bills which were subject matter of the complaint by his client before HP State Electricity Ombudsman in Case No.3 of 2008 have not been issued till date. Therefore according to him unless that order was complied with by the OPs, his client was not in a position to say anything on that behalf. As such the Ops are not entitled to maintain this application per Mr. Negi. In this behalf Mr. Kanwar on instructions received from the officers of the Ops stated that no doubt bills have not been issued but all the necessary particulars which are to be given in the bills were provided to the complainant as detailed in Annexure A 2 with this applications. As such plea raised is of hyper-technical in nature and this may be rejected. Kanwar on instructions received from the officers of the Ops stated that no doubt bills have not been issued but all the necessary particulars which are to be given in the bills were provided to the complainant as detailed in Annexure A 2 with this applications. As such plea raised is of hyper-technical in nature and this may be rejected. Fact remains that the Ops were duty bound to comply with the order of the Ombudsman more specially when the said order has attained finality intra parties. In these circumstances, it is ordered that OPs will issue fresh 47 revised bills in the light of the order contained in Annexure A 1 attached with this application by or before 26.06.2009 in the complaint and thereafter by or before 03.07.2009 complainants shall contact Mr. Pathania for reconciliation of these bills. Thereafter the case will be taken up for consideration, when if possible the complainant will be finally head and disposed of. On this date partner of the complainant, as well as Secretary of respondent no. 1 Board who is stated to be on leave today shall also remain present. Meanwhile OPs 2 to 4 are directed to seek instructions in the matter from OP no. 1 that even if the claim which is subject matter of this complaint is found to be correct, then for liquidating the said amount how would respondent no. 1 react to the Deluxe Enterprises v. H.P. State Electricity Board 523 said amount being paid in installments as prayed by the partner of the complainant. Be listed on 24.07.2009. Dasti copy will be collected by the learned Counsel for the parties from the Court Secretary free of cost as per rules. Order of the State Commission dated 24. 07.2009 reads as follows: "MA No. 474 of 2009 has been filed to bring on record the supervening facts on behalf of the complainant, which is taken on record. Reply, if any, be filed by the opposite parties and case is ordered to be listed on 18.08.2009. We are of the view that in order to adjust the equities between the parties, as well as subject to final outcome of this complaint, sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- be deposited by the complainant and out of this sum by or before 18.08.2009, the complainant shall deposit sum of Rs. We are of the view that in order to adjust the equities between the parties, as well as subject to final outcome of this complaint, sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- be deposited by the complainant and out of this sum by or before 18.08.2009, the complainant shall deposit sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- with the opposite parties, in case he wants ex-parte interim order dated 06.07.2007, be continued. Meanwhile Shri Bhalla is at liberty again to approach the XEN HPSEB at Nalagarh with full facts and figures for reconciliation of the accounts on the basis of the order passed by Ombudsman. In case any such attempt is made by Shri Bhalla, Shri Pathania assured that he will look into the matter again though he persisted with vehemence that there is nothing to be reconciled now. We say nothing in this behalf at this stage, save and except Shri Pathania will again look into the matter if Shri Bhalla comes to him. Shri Bhalla as well as learned Counsel for the opposite parties can collect copy of this order free of cost from the Court Secretary during the course of the day-to-day". Order dated 18.08.2009 reads as follows: "It has been stated by learned Counsel for the complainant on instructions received from his client, that direction regarding deposit of Rs. 2-1/2 lakh may be extended. This prayer is allowed. Be listed on 04.09.2009. Complainant wanted the matter to be heurdun its merits. Keeping in view the order passed on the last date of hearing, prayer to hear this matter without deposit of Rs.10 lakh is declined. MA No. 551 of 2009 has been filed. Be listed for consideration on the date fixed". Order dated 01.99.2009 reads as follows: "MA No. 551 of 2009 was filed on the last date of hearing alongwith MA No. 595 of 2009 Both these applications will be taken up for consideration after the complainants deposits the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- as directed in the prevision order (s) in a phased manner. Be listed on 04.09.2009 the date already fixed". Findings 5. It is pertinent to note that this complaint was filed in the year 2007. Complainant is a medium scale unit manufacturing Cotton yarn and engaging more than 100 workers and requiring huge quantity of electricity for running the manufacturing unit. Be listed on 04.09.2009 the date already fixed". Findings 5. It is pertinent to note that this complaint was filed in the year 2007. Complainant is a medium scale unit manufacturing Cotton yarn and engaging more than 100 workers and requiring huge quantity of electricity for running the manufacturing unit. Section 2 (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads as follows : "Consumer" means ay person who [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned persons (but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose.) (emphasis added) Though the complainant has averred in the synopsis and list of events and dates placed before us that he is the managing partner of the firm and set up this unit for providing self-employment, it is clear from the capital used and the number of persons employed and the quantity of electricity required for running this unit it is not the unit which has been set up for providing self-employment. By any stretch of imagination it cannot be compared with a small atta chakki or small oil mill using small quantity of power. Hence, it is doubtful whether the complainant comes under the purview of definition of a Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Even then we have looked into the merits of the case. It is clear from the records that the officers of the Electricity Board have time and again requested the complainant to furnish the records for reconciling the disputed bills. One of the letters dated 20.7.2009 addressed to the complainant which is reproduced below: "Your personal attention is invited towards order dated 19.06.2009 of the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla vide which some specific directions were issued to both, complainant as well as respondent. One of the letters dated 20.7.2009 addressed to the complainant which is reproduced below: "Your personal attention is invited towards order dated 19.06.2009 of the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla vide which some specific directions were issued to both, complainant as well as respondent. Keeping in view of order revised energy bills were issued by the SDO, Electrical Sub-Division No. 1, HPSEB, Nalagarh vide letter under reference and you were invited for reconciliation of these bills with in weeks time positively in the office of undersigned. Subsequently, you have attended the office of under signed on dated 03.07.2009 for the purpose, and Max, Nos. of bills have been reconciled and correctness of these bills have been agreed upon by yourself and for remaining bills you have pointed out some discrepancies and it was given to understand that the same shall be reconciled on 08.07.2009 but you did not turn up on that day. There after again repeated requests were made by myself and SDO ESD No. 1 Nalagarh to you telephonically and yourself agreed to attend the officer on 16.07.2009 (Thursday): On 16.07.2009 yourself attended the office only for a few minutes and shown your inability to reconcile the remaining bills as concerned files/ documents are lying with his advocate at Shimla and told that tomorrow he is proceedings to Shimla to collect the same and discussion shall be held on 18.07.2009 positively, but till date you have not turned up. It is therefore, again advised to reconcile the remaining bills before 24 of this month so that Hon'ble Court could be apprised accordingly". It is clear from this records that the complainant had himself not cooperated in getting the reconciliation of the bills done. The complainant was keen to get the interim order for reconnection of electricity continued without paying further amount. It is also clear from the records that the complainant's unit had suffered a fire accident during September 2005, which affected the financial health of the complainant adversely so that the complainant was trying his level best to evade the payment of electricity charges. It is further clear from the records further that out of the disputed bills to the tune of Rs. 59,50,773/- the complainant has deposited only 50% of the amount. It is further clear from the records further that out of the disputed bills to the tune of Rs. 59,50,773/- the complainant has deposited only 50% of the amount. The complainant continued to consume electricity after the interim order for reconnection was passed by the State Commission on 06.07.2007, and the arrears were mounting. Therefore, we do not see anything wrong in the order passed by the State Commission directing the complainant to deposit Rs. 10 lakh as a pre-condition to take up the matter for final hearing. In fact the State Commission on 24.07.2009 has been generous to the complainant by ordering to deposit of only Rs. 2.5 lakhs out of Rs. 10 lakhs to extend the interim order of reconnection of electricity dated 06.07.2007 before 18.08.2009 which period was further extended to 04.09.2009. In fact the order of the State Commission is just, fair and equitable and even generous. Even then instead of depositing the paltry sum of Rs. 2.5 lakhs the complainants has filed a revision petition before us to dodge the payment by adopting delaying tactics. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited the judgment of this Commission in Jharkhand State Electricity Board and Anr. Vs. Anwar Ali, II (2008) CPJ 284 (NC) = 2008(2) CPC 491 N.C., wherein it was held that Consumer has option either to file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act or under Electricity Act against the order passed under Section 126 Electricity Act by the Board Authorities. However, it is also observed no complaints can be entertained by the Fora against the final order passed by the Appellate authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act. Therefore, the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the electricity board and its officers are maintainable. The State Commission shall examine whether the ratio of the judgment of this case is applicable to the case on hand as it pertains to an individual - Anwar Ali and it does not pertain to an industry engaging 100 workers. In view of the above analysis, we do not see any merit in this revision petitioi1. The state Commission is very generous in granting favourable interim orders even then the complainant chose to file this revision petition. Therefore, this revision petition deserves to be dismissed. The order of State Commission dated 01.09.2009 is hereby confirmed. In view of the above analysis, we do not see any merit in this revision petitioi1. The state Commission is very generous in granting favourable interim orders even then the complainant chose to file this revision petition. Therefore, this revision petition deserves to be dismissed. The order of State Commission dated 01.09.2009 is hereby confirmed. In the facts and circumstances, the revision is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission. The State Commission shall hear the matter upon proof of deposit of the same with this Commission. The State Commission will proceed to hear and dispose off the matter as expeditiously as possible and shall take decision in accordance with law without being m any manner influenced b observations made in this order. M.R.B.