Kerala

Idukki

CC/206/2023

R Soman - Complainant(s)

Versus

Assi Executive Engineer - Opp.Party(s)

27 Feb 2024

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :  14.11.2023

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the  27^th  day of   February,  2024

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR PRESIDENT

SRI. AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO.206/2023

Between

Complainant       :    R. Soman,

Pakkukandathil,

Pallikkunnu P.O.,

Peerumade.

And

Opposite Parties       : 1.  Assistant Executive Engineer,

  Electrical Section,

  Vandipperiyar.

        2.  The Chairperson,

  CGRF, KSEBL, Central Region,

  220 K.V., Substation Compound,

  HMT Colony, Kalamassery – 683500.

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

1. This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the Act, for short).  Complainant’s case is briefly discussed hereunder :

 

On 10.10.2013, upon an inspection conducted, presumably by opposite parties 1 and 2, namely, Assistant Executive Engineer of Vandipperiyar Electrical Section and Chairperson, CGRF, KSEBL having its office at Kalamassery, it was revealed that complainant had taken unauthorized electric connection from the premises rented out by him owned by one Raveendran, to his newly constructed house.  Complainant submits that this was not done intentionally.  When he had applied for ownership certificate of the property wherein the newly constructed house is situated, he was informed by Peerumade Panchayath that there was no pattayam in his name for the land.  Complainant was then directed to bring possession certificate for 03 cents of property wherein the new house was put up.  When he had applied for possession certificate, he was informed from Taluk office that atleast one month time will be required for grant of certificate.  It was under these circumstances that complainant had unauthorisedly taken electric supply from another premises.  His house warming was on 15.9.2013.  Complainant was directed to pay Rs.15,600/- to the Board.  When he had contacted opposite parties, he was informed that presently he had to pay only Rs.7,800/- and a fee of Rs.510/- for hearing.  Complainant had accordingly remitted the amount.  However, he was not called for hearing till date.  Complainant submits that he is a coolie worker and unable to raise money to pay amount ordered by authorities.  Therefore, he wants to get the amount already remitted by him to be deducted from the amount to be paid.  Complainant thus prays for an appropriate relief owing to deficiency in service mentioned above as against opposite parties.  

 

Though we had posted the case for admission hearing after it was re-presented curing defects noticed in filing.  As complainant was absent, we had taken the case for orders.  The point which arise for consideration is :

1. Whether complaint is maintainable ?

 

Point No.1 :

 

Admittedly, complainant had taken unauthorised electric connection from the house rented out by him from one Raveendran, to his newly constructed house.  This is an offence under the Electricity Act.  As per provisions therein, complainant is liable to pay for power consumption and also penalty as this was done illegally.  What he now seeks is deduction of amount paid by him, which is Rs.7,800/- being half the             amount ordered to be paid and Rs.510/- as hearing fees.  Complainant has not produced any documents to show that he had in fact paid such an  amount to the Board.  He has also not produced any document to show what was the amount ordered by the Board for  illegal drawing of electricity supply lines and power consumption.  Complainant cannot seek any benefit arising from his illegal act.  No cause of action as such has arisen to complainant as there is no deficiency in service.  Whether amount, if any, paid by complainant is to be deducted from total dues or not is a matter to be considered as per law applicable.  No electric connection has been given to complainant and therefore he cannot be considered as a consumer of the Board.  There is no consumer – service provider relationship between complainant and opposite parties.  Complaint is therefore not maintainable.  Point No.1 is answered accordingly.  

 

In the result, this complaint is rejected.

 

           Pronounced by this Commission on this the   27^th  day of February, 2024

 

     Sd/-

       SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order,          Sd/-

    SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR