By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:<br /> <br /> <br /> Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> <br /> The gist of the complaint is as given below.<br /> <br /> The Complainant is a vegetable Merchant having his shop in one Kalathil building No. TP 1/400D. The building owner is one Basheer. The Complainant availed electricity connection in his shop room with consumer No.19329. After receiving electric connection the first bill was issued to him dated 20.12.2004. During the period of the first bill the Complainant was not in use of electricity and no unit current was used. Whereas as per the bill the Complainant has to remit Rs.392/-. The bill showed fixed charge Rs.30/- and the meter rent was Rs.10/-. After obtaining the first bill the Complainant came to know that the meter was <br /> - 2 -<br /> faulty. A written complaint was given to the first Opposite Party and assurance was also given that the meter would be replaced and the bill amount can be reduced. Subsequently the second bill issued to the Complainant as per that the Complainant has to remit Rs. 799/-. The fixed charge in the bill is Rs.60/- and meter rent Rs.20/-. The Complainant has been conducted vegetable trade in the shop and there was no use of electricity during the night since the Complainant use to shut down by 7 P.M. More over only 2 bulbs are in use in the shop. The belief of the Complainant that the meter faulty is confirmed on obtaining the 2 bills. The 1st Opposite Party also instructed the Complainant at that time gave a petition showing that the meter is faulty. After two days of giving the written complaint, the officials from 1st Opposite Party's Office came to the shop and meter was replaced. The Complainant did not remit the amount but the connection was disconnected as a result of it and the Complainant was compelled to remit the arrear bills amount on 21.3.2005 of Rs.1,261/- and receipt was also paid to the Complainant towards the payment. The Complainant also made it black and white in the <br /> complaint book the reconnection was also done after 2 weeks. On 22.4.2005 an another bill was<br /> issued, the consumption recorded was 3 unit and the charge levied Rs.17/- only. The employee from the 1st Opposite Party's Office tried to remove the fuse on the ground that the arrear amount of the bills were not remitted by the Complainant. The Complainant showed the receipt of the payment made by him where as the employee answered to the Complainant that the amount remitted by the Complainant was not entered in the register. The Complainant was forced to give the complaint to the 1st Opposite Party. The disconnected electricity connection is not so far connected. The act of the Opposite Party's are absolutely deficiency in service which caused mental loss and agony to the Complainant. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to reconnect the electricity connection which stands disconnected. The Opposite Party may be directed to give Complainant Rs.500/- towards the expenses and the bills amount <br /> (Contd.......3)<br /> - 3 -<br /> Rs.392/- and Rs.799/- collected unauthorizedly are to be refunded to the Complainant. The Complainant also payed for compensation of Rs.10,000/- along with cost.<br /> <br /> 2. The Opposite Party filed version. The sum up of the version filed by the Opposite Parties are as given below. The Complainant is not a consumer. The Opposite Party has not given the electricity connection to the Complainant and further admitted the supply of the electricity is given to the builder owner as a subscriber. The complainant is only a tenant doing business in the shop room.<br /> <br /> 3. The Complaint is not maintainable in limine. The Kerala State Electricity Board has a <br /> statutory firm where in Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board is the competent authority to sue and to be sued. As per the provisions of law the Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board is to be a party in the complaint. The Complainant has not followed the order of the Honourable <br /> High Court of Kerala in filing the complaint. The connection given to the consumer is under tariff 7 (b). The instruction to the 7(b) consumer are such that during the period of electricity supply to the Complainant. The actual consumption is to be looked in to the meter installed in the shop of the Complainant. The faulty meter would be exchanged. The procedure adopted by the Opposite Party is that in the event of any faulty meter if exist in the premises, the unit of electricity consumed is calculated in an average of six months for the succeeding period. The Complainant is not upon the shop room and no business was in continuation. The amount of the first 2 bills issued to the Complainant was not remitted and connection was detached on 14.3.2005. When the bill amount was cleared the Complainant was reconnected the electric supply. The complaint is not maintainable is to be dismissed with cost to the Opposite Party.<br /> <br /> (Contd.....4)<br /> - 4 -<br /> 4. The point in consideration are.<br /> 1.Whether the complaint is maintainable?.<br /> 2.If there any deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties?.<br /> 3.Relief and cost.<br /> <br /> 5. Point No.1:- The allegation in the complaint is that the Opposite Parties charged excess amount for the consumption of electric energy by the complaint. The bills of electric charges issued to the Complainant are baseless relied on the unit recorded in faulty meter. Ext.A1 is the bill dated 2nd December 2004 of Rs.292/-. Ext.A2 is an another bill dated 18th February 2005 of Rs.799/-. The bill dated 22nd April 2005 is Ext.A4 which is Rs.99/-. The Opposite Parties filed version contented that the complaint is bad for the non jointer of necessary parties. The Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board, Thiruvananthapuram is in the official capacity to sue and to be sued. Being Kerala State Electricity Board is a statutory board privileged under order 29 rule 1 and 2. The Complainant has not taken any steps to supplement Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board as a party in the complaint. The 1st Opposite Party swear in affidavit in behalf of 2nd Opposite Party also. Supporting the contention in the version it is contented that the Complainant is not a consumer of the Opposite Parties that it is admitted that the Complainant is a tenant occupied in the premises of the landlord who is a consumer. The meritorious aspect of the dispute is not to be considered being the complaint itself is bad for non jointer of necessary parties. The point No.1 is considered accordingly.<br /> <br /> 6. Points No.2 and 3:- The complaint is not maintainable on the ground of non jointer of necessary parties. The Consideration of point No.2 and 3 is not necessitated.<br /> (Contd.....4)<br /> - 5 -<br /> In the result the complaint is dismissed without any cost.<br /> <br /> <br /> Pronounced in open Forum on this the 28th day of March 2008.<br />