By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:<br /> <br /> <br /> The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> <br /> The complaint in brief is as follows.<br /> <br /> The Complainant is a consumer of Electric connection with consumer No.12764. The connection was availed on 13.01.1999 and it continued unhindered till 16.6.2003. Payment was clearly made by the Complainant towards the consumption charge. The Complainant was in use of one power plug, 2 three pin plug and 2 Switches connected to bulb. Some persons from electricity department came to the house of the Complainant and after writing something in a white paper the Complainant was compelled to sign. It is to be noted that the Complainant is fully ignorant of reading and writing in malayalam. The bill dated 27.8.2003 No. DB/2003-2004 of Rs.3616 was given to the Complainant, demanding the payment before<br /> (Contd........2)<br /> - 2 -<br /> 04.09.2003. The reason for the additional charge levied upon the Complainant could not be understood. The Complainant sent registered notice to the Opposite Party on 31.8.2003 seeking the clarification of the additional amount demanded from the Complainant. The Opposite Party did not respond to the notice. The Complainant had not used any extra electric energy apart from normal use. The machinery referred by the Opposite Party dated 14..8.2003 stating the installation of electric equipments is absolutely false. The Complainant went to the office of the Opposite Party in order to remit the amount but the Opposite Party was not ready to accept it. Instead the electric supply to the complainant was cut off and it is also against natural justice. The lawyer notice was also sent, in the reply sent to the Complainant some baseless reason are pointed out. The Opposite Party has not convinced the Complainant the reason for the bill of high amount. The disconnection of electricity is motivated with personal interest. The Complainant is to be compensated with Rs.25,000/- and the supply of energy which is detached is to be reconnected.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party filed version on their appearance. It is reiterated in the version that the complaint is bad for non jointer of necessary parties. Kerala State Electricity Board is a statutory organization. The Secretary, K.S.E.B is the competent authority to sue and to be sued for and behalf of Kerala State Electricity Board. Who is not made a party in the complaint. The complaint is not maintainable for this reason. The consumer number of the petitioner is admitted and the connection was with effect from the 13.1.1999 under commercial tariff with a registered connected load of 700 watts. A surprise visit along with the Sub Engineer, it was seen that the consumer had connected an additional load to the extent of 2592 Watts, unauthorisedly and the electricity is being used for industrial purpose, which is in a different tariff. The connection for commercial tariff with a connected load above 1,000 Watts is to be charged in commercial hire tariff. At the time of inspection the connected load was Welding<br /> (Contd...... 3)<br /> - 3 -<br /> Set 2 KVA, Air Compressor 2 HP, Light 2 x 40 W (80 W) and Plug 2 x 60 W (120 W). The mahazer was prepared in presence of the Complainant recording the connected load and it was also acknowledged by the Complainant, in presence of one Sri. Rajeevan an employee of the Complainant. The Complainant compel to endorse in the mahazer is absolutely false. The notice was also issued to the Complainant narrating the above facts dated 27.8.2003 No.DB3/2003-2004 an explanation was also sought from the Petitioner. If anything contrary is to be submitted the consumer misused the supply of energy in a different tariff, which is against the standing rules and regulations of the board. The Complainant was only supplied the bill of Rs.3,616/-, as per clause 42 (d) of the conditions of supply of electric energy. The averment of the Complainant that he went to the Opposite Party's Office in three times for the payment of amount is utterly false. The penal bill issued to the Complainant is only upon the basis of actual consumption recorded in the energy meeter for the past three months. The supply of energy was disconnected, when the Petitioner failed to remit the bill. The connection of electric energy will be reinstated, if the Petitioner is ready to remit the bill with surcharge and reconnection charges. The Opposite Party is not liable to compensate the petitioner as claimed for. The petition is to be dismissed as on non maintainable. <br /> <br /> The points in consideration are:<br /> 1.Whether the petition is bad for the reason of the non jointer of necessary parties?.<br /> 2.Whether the Opposite Party's Act involves in deficiency in service?.<br /> 3.Relief and costs.<br /> <br /> Point No.1:<br /> The complaint is filed with the Assistant Engineer, Electric Sub Division, Mananthavady as the Opposite Party. The opposite Party in version already averred that Kerala State<br /> (Contd...... 4)<br /> - 4 -<br /> Electricity Board is the competent authority to sue and to be sued for and on behalf of the Kerala State Electricity Board. The Petitioner has not taken any steps to implead the Secretary Kerala State Electricity Board as a party. The petition is bad for non jointer of necessary party. The Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum is the authority to sue and to be sued. The point No.1 is found against the petitioner.<br /> <br /> Points No.2 and 3:<br /> The deficiency in service of the Opposite Party is not to be analyzed in detail being the<br /> <br /> petition itself is not maintainable, due to the non jointer of necessary parties. The Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board is not arrayed as a party <br /> <br /> <br /> In the result, the complaint is dismissed on default and no order upon costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> Pronounced in open Forum on this the 19th day of December 2007.<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT: Sd/-<br /> <br /> MEMBER: Sd/-<br /> <br /> <br /> /True copy/ <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> <br /> Witnesses for the Complainant:<br /> <br /> PW1. Silvester Complainant.<br /> <br /> Witnesses for the Opposite Party:<br /> <br /> Nil. (Contd...... 5)<br /> 5 -<br /> <br /> <br /> Exhibits for the Complainant:<br /> A1. Copy of the License.<br /> A2. Demand & Disconnection Notice. dt:16.06.2003.<br /> A3. Copy of the Site Mahazer. Dt:14.08.2003.<br /> A4. Letter. dt:27.08.2003.<br /> A5. Demand Notice cum Disconnection Notice.<br /> A6. Copy of the letter. <br /> A7. Acknowledgement.<br /> A8. Copy of the Registered Lawyer Notice. dt:22.09.2003.<br /> A9. Acknowledgement.<br /> A10. Reply Notice.<br /> <br /> Exhibits for the Opposite Party:<br /> Nil.<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.<br /> <br /> <br /> Compared by:<br /> <br /> M/<br /> <br />