By. Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:-
The complaint is filed by the complainant for an Order directing the opposite party to cancel the bill bearing No.569815 dated 04.03.2013 for Rs.59,703/- issued by the opposite party due to gross negligence and unfair trade practice of opposite party. The opposite party appeared before this Forum and filed version and contented that the complaint is filed against the assessment made by the assessing officer under section 126 of Electricity Act 2003. It is the settled position of law as laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court of India in UP Power Corporation Limited and others V/s Anis Ahammed that a complaint against the assessment under Section 126 of Electricity Act is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. In the light of direction laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court, the above compliant is not maintainable before the Forum. More over, the connection given to the complainant is under LT VII Tariff. The complainant filed a complaint before Munsiff Court, Sulthan Bathery as OS 53/2013 seeking the same relief as prayed for. That case is still pending before the Honorable Court. The complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint since the complainant is not a consumer of opposite party. The connection is obtained in the name of Omana Vide Consumer No.29191, Bill are used to issue in that name and payments are made by her to the board. Said Omana is a necessary party in this case and the complaint is bad for non-jointer of necessary party. On 25.12.2013 the Anti Power Theft Squad (APTS) of KSEB Kalpetta conducted inspection on the premises of Omana and found that several electrical equipments were being used in the premises which had resulted in unauthorized use of electricity more than the sanctioned load. It was also found that a freezer having a capacity of 500 watts placed in a goods auto parked in front of the premises was being charged using power from the electricity connection. So there is misuse from VII B Tariff to VII A Tariff which is used to commercial connection having connected load of more than 1000 watts. In addition to the version, the opposite party filed I.A No.248/2013 for a hearing on maintainability of complaint as a preliminary issue on the light of the direction laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court of India as described above. Copy of I.A 248/2013 is served to the complainant and complainant filed counter stating that the premises in which connection is given in a residential building and a Tea shop cum cool bar is run by the complainant in a portion of the residence. Omana is the sister in law of complainant. In 2010, the property is transferred in the name of the husband of complainant. And now the building is possessed by the complainant. Officials of panchayath issued license for hotel business named New Karthika milk booth at Karapuzha. The complainant is receiving all notices and bills of opposite party and payment is also made by the complainant. In 2010 itself the complainant applied before the opposite party for a change of name and the opposite party is aware of the entire things. The opposite party suppressed all these facts. The complainant also contents that the Electricity Act specifically states that the Order of provisional assessment shall be served to the complainant. In this case it is not done by the assessing officer. The act of assessing officer is deliberate violation of the provisions of Electricity Act to misuse the process of law to harass the complainant. So the petition is not maintainable and shall be dismissed.
2. Heard both parties. On perusal of complaint, version, maintainability I.A 248/2013 and its counter, the Forum found that the assessment made by the assessing officer of opposite party is under section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003. As per the direction laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court of India reported in 2013(3)KHC SN 19(SC) UP Power Corporation Limited and Others V/s Anis Ahammed that a complaint against the assessment under Section 126 of Electricity Act is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. Since such a direction exists, a question arises specifically on that point cannot be considered before this Forum. On perusal, it is found that the complainant did not prefer any appeal against the assessment as per law but simply approached the Munsiff Court. When no remedy from Munsiff Court is obtained, the complainant then approached the Consumer Forum for the same prayer. So by analyzing all these aspects, the Forum found that the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum hence I.A No.248/2013 is allowed.
In the result, Since the I.A No.248/2013 is allowed, the Forum found that the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum. Hence the complaint is also dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 2nd day of August 2014.
Date of Filing:14.08.2013.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
