THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C. 336/2014
Dated this the 1st day of January, 2016
( Present: Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB. : President)
Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A : Member
Sri. Joseph Mathew, MA, LLB : Member
ORDER
Present: Rose Jose, President:
This case is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for the relief against opposite parties Electricity Board. Petitioner is running a Maruthi Service Centre in a building owned by one Miss Marium Rasak and its electricity bills were only bill lest amount and he used to pay it regularly to the concerned , in the month of January 2014, 3rd OP inspected the service station and demanded the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.2046/- on or before 10.02.2014. After that, another bill dtd.28.02.14 for an amount of Rs.18,622/- was imposed as a fine by the 3rd opposite party the Executive engineer and in section 126 of the electricity Amendment Act. For the unauthorized use of 3805 watts of electricity. Petitioner stated that the opposite party has mistakenly calculated that huge watts of load by including the load of equipments given to his service centre by the public for repairing works. Petitioner alleged that he is not liable to remit such an enormous amount, as he has not taken any unauthorized connected Load and hence he is not liable to pay the amount and it is baseless and unreasonable. Hence he filed the petition to get an order to cancel the additional bill amount of Rs.18622/-
The opposite party appeared on summons and filed their version submitting the unauthorized use of energy of 3805 watts as against the sanctioned connected load of 960 watts and another point raised is that petitioner is not a registered consumer with electricity board and hence he is not a consumer. Opposite party contended that considering both these aspects petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Opposite party stated that the unauthorized current load of 3805 watts was consumed by the petitioner without the approval of the authority and this acts of the petitioner amounts to misuse of energy and is against the agreement with Board. Hence he contented that the question of maintainability is to be decided as a preliminary issue before going to the merits of the case. The main contention raised by the opposite party is that petition is against the assessment under section 126 of Electricity Act or against the offences committed Under Section 135 to 140 of Electricity Act are not maintainable before the Consumer Forums. In order to substantiate their argument the opposite party cited a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in UP Power Corporation Ltd and another Vs. Anis Ahama (2013). 8 SCC.491) It is crystal clear from that decision that electricity assessment Under Section 126 or committing offence under section 135 to 140 of electricity Act 2003 do not come under complaint as defined in section 2(1)(c ) of the CP Act1986. More over learned counsel of opposite party argued that order of the competent authority for the additional bill amount under section 126 of the electricity Act can be challenged only before the appellate authority.
At this stage the main issue to be considered is the question of maintainability and in that aspect the decision of the Honble Supreme Court is very clear and the argument put forward by the opposite party to the effect that the complainant not comes under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is reliable. Considering the pleadings and after perusal of documents of both sides we find that the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.
In the result the issue of maintainability is found against the complainant hence the complaint stand dismissed with out cost.
Dated this the 1st day of January 2016.
Date of filing:27.06.2014.
SD/-MEMBER SD/- PRESIDENT SD/- MEMBER
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
