By. Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an Order directing the opposite parties to cancel the notices issued on 17.06.2015 as per DB 88/15-16/88(1), DB 88/15-16/88(2), DB 88/15-16/88(3), DB 88/15-16/88(4), DB 88/15-16/88(5) notices and to pay Rs.56,617/- and Rs.21,241/- as refund of bill amounts, to restore the electricity connection as per IA Tariff, to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.
2. Brief of complaint:- The complainant is the consumer of opposite parties and the owner of building numbers 8725, 8726, 8727, 8728, 8729 in Ambalavayal Grama Panchayath. In this building, the complainant have one room for his own use. The complainant used to pay the bills regularly without any default. On 06.06.2013, the APTS team of opposite parties inspected the rooms and issued bills for Rs.56,617/- and additional bills of Rs.21,241/- under 7A Tariff. The complainant is allowed connection under 1A Tariff. The opposite parties demanded the complainant to pay these two bills or to face disconnection. The complainant so paid the bills and filed application to change the tariff to 7A. Thereafter, the complainant was paying the bills under 7A Tariff. On 14.06.2015, the APTS team again inspected the premises of complainant and issued bills for Rs.5,614/- in Room No.8725, Rs.8,361/- in 8726, Rs.4,396/- in 8727, Rs.4,404/- in 8728 and Rs.8,478/- in 8729. The total amounts comes to Rs.31,255/-. The opposite parties also demanded the complainant to change the tariff to 7A and to pay the Bills on or before 14.07.2015. The opposite parties have no authority to demand 7A Tariff amounts from the complainant. Since the connection is in 1A. The act of opposite parties are nothing but unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. Aggrieved by this, the complaint is filed.
3. On receipt of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties and opposite parties appeared before the Forum and filed version. Along with version, the opposite parties filed I.A.393/2015 to take the maintainability of complaint as a preliminary issue. The notice of I.A.393/2015 is served to the complainant and the complainant filed counter. In the I.A.393/2015, the opposite parties contented that the complaint is filed against the assessment made by the assessing officer under section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003. It is a settled position of law as laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court of India ie UP Power Corporation Limited and others V/s. Anis Muhammed that a complaint against the assessment under section 126 of Electricity Act is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. The complainant availed electrical connection for commercial purpose and was doing commercial activity in the premises for which electrical connection was obtained. As per Section 145 of the Electricity Act also, the Civil court have no jurisdiction to try the case. Hence the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant filed counter and stated that the complaint is filed not only against section 126 of the Act, but also against the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties. The complainant is having domestic connection in LT 1A Tariff and it is not a commercial connection. The complainant falls within the definition of consumer. In the UP Power Corporation case, the connection is industrial connection. The complainant is not doing any commercial activity. The rooms are line quarters. The complainant is not doing homestay as stated in version. Hence the I.A.393/15 is liable to be dismissed.
4. Heard the complainant and opposite parties in I.A.393/2015. On perusal of Bills issued by the opposite parties as per inspection dated 14.06.2015 by the APTS Team, it is seen that the bills are issued under section 126 of the Electricity Act. There are five bills issued for 5 rooms under section 126 of Electricity Act and the time given for remitting the bill amount is on 14.07.2015. These five bills are issued on 16.06.2015. Again the opposite parties issued 5 notices on 17.06.2015 to the complainant calling up on him to give application within 7 days of receipt of the notice to change the tariff to 7A. On verifying the Mahassar prepared by the APTS Team, it is understood that even if connection is given under 1A Tariff for domestic connection, there were no person living in the rooms as family or otherwise. The rooms are used for Tourist people for daily rent and a Board is placed as “City Holiday Home, Service Villa, Ambalavayal” and near the area of building. The inspection was duly informed to the complainant and copy of mahazar is served. On analyzing the entire evidences the Forum found that the complainant is using the building for Tourist purpose and it is for profit motive. The complainant stated in the complaint that the rooms are used as quarters. But on inspection, it is revealed that no individual or family people are staying there on monthly basis. But it is used for Tourist purpose. The complainant not stated this material aspect in the complaint and there is suppression. The Forum analyzed that running Holiday Home for tourist purpose is nothing but profit motive business and the complainant is not coming under the definition of 'Consumer' as envisaged in Section 2(1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act. There are rulings by the Honorable Supreme Court of India and National Commission to the point that the assessment made by the assessing officer under section 126 of Electricity Act 2003, the Consumer Forum have no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. On perusing the evidences available, the Forum did not find any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties.
In the result, I.A.393/2015 is allowed and complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 7th day of October 2015.
Date of Filing:04.07.2015.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
a/-
