By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:-

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant has been running a Saw mill in accordance with sanction given by the Forest Department for the last 23 years. The procedure of inspection by the District Medical Officer was effected and finally a license was given to the Complainant for sawing, cutting, furniture construction production of agricultural equipment and pealing was alloted vide the license given. The establishment of the complaint is titled as universal wood works and agricultural equipments, while the concern was running on the Complainant had to shift the concern to an another location followed by the allegations of the inhabitants in the surroundings that running of the establishment caused pollution of the dust. The sawing establishment of the complainant was shifted to an another location in the same Village for which sanction was accorded by the forest and other departments. In persuance of the order of the Divisional Forest Officer sanction was granted for the shifting of the sawing establishment. The complainant shifted the saw mill to the sanctioned location. Apart from the packing case unit of other section of the sawing establishment turned to be running stage. The packing case unit was not in running conditions due to the shortage of money. In the shifted location, the Complainant had to run the machinery in addition to the electric power installing a diesel motor. How ever by the use of diesel motor heavy loss incured to the complainant and the entire machineries are to be run by electric power and for that purpose the complainant requested the Opposite party for the supply of electric energy. The formalities required for the supply of electric energy was also put into act by the Complainant. The requirements for the total running of the unit by the electric energy was carried out by the complainant and for wiring and other activities the Complainant spent Rs.1,00,000/-. After spending this huge amount based upon the assurance by the Opposite Party for the supply of electric energy, the Opposite Party withdraw themselves from their assurance for supplying electricity on the ground that the Forest Departments has not given NOC for the running of entire machinery by the electric energy. The District Forest Officer is not empowered to raise the objection to the supply of electric energy to the Complainant. The flimsy ground raised by the Opposite party not supplying electricity for the running of entire machinery is a deficiency in service. The complaint could not start the pealing unit in the absence of additional load. The complainant has to spent Rs.1,00,000/- for the wiring and installation of other materials required for electric connection. There may be an order directing the Opposite party to give the complainant Rs.1,00,000/- towards the compensation along with cost.

2. The Opposite Party filed version. The sum up of the version filed is as follows:- The application of the complainant for the allocation of additional load to the wood industry is admitted and the power allocation was also sanctioned. There after the Forest Range Officer, Kalpetta informed the 1^st Opposite party vide the letter dated 14.07.2008 not to provide additional electricity to the industry. Since the application for the running of the additional unit was not provided with NOC. The Divisional Forest Officer, South Wayanad, Kalpetta was given sanction only to run Ban Saw of 20 HP, Re Saw of 15 HP and Cutting Machine of 1 HP for running of the pealing unit the complainant had not produced any order of sanction. The Opposite parties are not illegally bound to supply electricity for unauthorised purpose. The objection of the Forest Department if withdrawn the supply of additional load can be effected. The objection is raised by the authorised departments and they are also a necessary party for proper adjudication of the dispute raised. The Complainant is bad for non jointer of necessary party. A copy of the license fee receipt produced by the Complainant does not ear mark the quantity of power used in the industry. An another receipt produced by the Complainant on demanding is with a writing that 90 HP motor can be used in the industry. The authenticated copy of the same was not produced by the complainant even though demanded. There is no unfair trade practise or deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party. The complaint is not with the footing on the just and reasonable ground and hence it is to be dismissed with cost to the Opposite Party.

3. Points in consideration are:-

1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. What order as to cost and compensation?

4. Points No.1 and 2:- Points 1 and 2 can be considered together. The Complainant filed proof affidavit Exts.A1 to A16 are the documents marked on the side of the Complainant. The Opposite Party inter alia contenting the contention of the complainant filed proof affidavit. Exts.B1 to B8 are the documents produced for the Opposite Parties. The Complainant and Opposite Parties rendered oral testimony in this case.

5. The case of the complainant is that the shifting of the wood industry by the Complainant to an another location was complied with all the formalities required. The pealing unit in the shifted location was not started for the running of the entire equipments the supply of electric energy was not sufficient. The Complainant supplied for power allocation and an additional load for the running of the industry in total with the additional power supply. The Complainant has done additional wiring in the industry and other extra works were done for which the Complainant spent Rs.1,00,000/-. The Opposite Party was not ready to supply additional load to the Complainants industry which caused heavy loss to the complainant and it is to be compensated. The shifting of the wood industry by name Universal Agricultural Equipments and Wood Works to the Survey No. 107 of Kaniambetta Village was in persuance of the sanctioned and order of the proceedings of the Divisional Forest Officer dated 01.12.2005 which is marked as Ext.A4. In clause C of the same order it is with a stipulation neither the capacity nor the number of machines shall increase at the new site. Before shifting of the wood industry the license given for the capacity of the machineries was Ban saw 20 HP, Re Saw 15 HP and Cutting Machine 1 HP in total 36 HP motor was in use. On perusal of the documents produced by the Complainant it is evident that the Complainant was not sanctioned for the use of additional power installing motor in the new site. In the oral testimony of the complainant it is admitted that no sanction was given for the use of additional motor or any machinery for pealing work. How ever the proceedings of the Forest Department is stayed by the Hon'ble High Court. The Complainant has not produced any documents to establish his contention that he is entitled to use additional electric power. Ext.A10 is the proforma for power allocation issued by Assistant Executive Engineer. The extent of power load issued by the Complainant is 20 HP. The Opposite Party on examination admitted that the power allocation was sanctioned an additional load applied by the Complainant is ready to be supplied. The Opposite Party was not given the application for CD. Ext.B6 is the letter issued by the Forest Range Officer, Kalpetta to the 1^st Opposite Party. It is an objection forwarded by the Forest Range Officer not to supply electricity to Re Saw and Plainer in addition to sanctioned power of 36 HP Ban Saw 20 HP Re Saw of 15 HP and Cutting Machine of 1 HP. The complaint filed is for compensation from the Opposite Party of Rs.1,00,000/- the cost incured for wiring and other extra arrangements made. It is found that the Opposite Party is objected from supplying the additional load by the notice of the Forest Range Officer. The shifting of the machinery in capacity of 36 HP was sanctioned to the Complainant. Further the Opposite Party is also ready to supply the additional load if No Objection Certificate in supplying the energy is forwarded. The wiring and other extra works carried out by the Complainant is not followed by the directions of the Opposite Parties. Non supply of additional load cannot be considered as a deficiency in service and the points are found accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed no order as to cost and compensation.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 31^st October 2009.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER- I : Sd/-

MEMBER-II: Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

PW1. N. K. Eliyas. Complainant.

Witnesses for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. Reji George. Asst. Engineer, KSEB, Kambalakkad.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Copy of Certificate.

A2. Copy of Certificate. dt:20.10.84.

A3 series (3 number) License.

A4. Copy of Proceedings. dt:01.12.2005.

A5. Copy of Proceedings. dt:30.06.2006.

A6. Copy of Letter. dt:17.08.2007.

A7. Copy of Order. dt:17.12.2007.

A8. Copy of Letter. dt:01.02.2005.

A9 (2 numbers) Copy of Electricity Bill. dt:16.10.2008.

A10. Proforma for Power Allocation.

A11. Letter. dt:24.07.2008.

A12. True copy of Order dt:22.10.2007.

A13. Copy of License. dt 08.07.2009.

A14. Copy of Acknowledgment. dt:21.08.2009.

A15. Certificate. dt:22.07.2006.

A16. Letter. dt:25.10.2004.

X1. True copy of Receipt. dt:18.05.2006.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

B1. Copy of Proceedings dt:01.12.2005.

B2. Copy of Proceedings dt:30.6.2006.

B3. Copy of Receipt.

B4. Copy of Receipt.

B5. Copy of Letter. dt:24.07.2008.

B6. Copy of Letter. dt:14.7.2008.

B7. Copy of Letter. dt:2.2.2009.

B8. Copy of Letter. dt:07.01.2009.