Complainant  :        P.M.Jose, Managing Partner, JRK Polymers, Industrial

                             Estate, Kallettumkara, Thrissur.

                             (By Adv.A.D.Benny, Thrissur)                            

Respondents    :    1. Asst. Enginer, Electrical Section, Kodakara, K.S.E.B.,

                                 Kodakara.

                             2. K.S.E.B., rep. by Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram.

                             (By Adv. M.K.Girishmohan Thrissur)

                                                          O R D E R

By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President

            The case  of complainant is that  the complainant is a consumer of respondents vide consumer No.2256.  The complainant along with other partners are conducting the business for the purpose of livelihood by means of self employment.  He is using the electricity in limited manner and is paying bills regularly.  On 20/2/06 the APTS inspected the premises and disconnected the power  supply.  The mahazar statements are incorrect.  The meter box has been  sealed by respondents and complainant could not do any tampering.  The disconnection of electricity  is a deficiency in service.  The bill issued for Rs.2,16,778/- is illegal and liable to be set aside.  Hence the complaint.

          2. The counter averments are that  the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum since the Forum has no  authority to  consider the matter of theft of electrical energy.  The business conducting by complainant is a commercial concern and  is profit motive.  There are several workers in the unit. In this context also the complaint is not maintainable.  APTS conducted an inspection on 20/2/06 and found that  meter has been tampered.  So the bill has been issued as per provisions of Indian Electricity Act.  The complainant is liable to pay the bills amount.  There is nothing illegal in disconnecting the connection.  Hence dismiss.

          3. Points for consideration are:

1)Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?

2)If so is there any deficiency in service from respondents?

3)Other reliefs and costs?

          4. The evidence adduced consists of oral testimony of PW1and RW1, Exhibit P1 and Exhibits R1 to R3.

          5. The 1^st point to be considered is the maintainability of the complaint before the Forum.  The respondents alleged that the complainant being a commercial consumer does not have  the locus standi to file this complaint before the Forum.  At the same time complainant stated that he is running the firm exclusively for the purpose of livelihood by means of self employment.

          6. The complainant is examined as PW1 and Exhibit P1 marked.  During cross examination he has stated that there are  5 workers in the firm and  during 2006 also there were 5 workers.  But no muster roll is produced to show the number of workers.  According to him the firm has  business inside and out side Kerala.  PW1 admitted that he  is a income tax payee and is giving  allowances like gratuity, bonus etc. to employees.  It is his version that he usually will not attend the firm.  Even then the work is going on through the workers.  He is the person  giving wages to workers and so he is  a service provider himself.  So he is not a consumer as defined by Consumer Protection Act.  It is also his version that he is not a  partner in other establishments.  But he stated that he does not know the other partners in the firm.   Muraleedharan and Anilkumar are also the partners in another firms. So it is very certain  that the partners are not doing the business exclusively for the purpose of livelihood by means of self employment.  Whether these persons have other sources of income are not disclosed.  So the complainant failed to prove that he is conducting the JRK Polymers  exclusively for the purpose of their livelihood by means of self employment. 

          7. RW1 who was the Assistant Engineer working in APTS is examined and he deposed that there were several workers in the firm.  Even if the number is not specified,  there is no cross examination on this point.  From the above discussion it is proved that the complainant is a commercial  consumer and has no locus standi to approach the Forum. 

          8. In the result the complaint stands dismissed. 

          Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 28^th   day of September 2011.

                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                   Padmini Sudheesh, President    

                                                                             Sd/- 

                                                                   Rajani.P.S., Member               

                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                   M.S.Sasidharan, Member                                               Appendix

Complainant’s Exhibit

Ext. P1 Bill dated 21/2/06

Complainant’s witness

PW1 – P.M.Jose

Respondents Exhibits

Ext. R1 Site Mahazar

Ext. R2 Copy of notice

Ext. R3 Coy of bill

Respondents witness

RW1 – Ramaprakash.K.V.

                                                                                                Id/-                                                                                                        President