Smt. Prabhavathi filed a consumer case on 16 Aug 2010 against CHESCOM in the Mandya Consumer Court. The case no is CC/10/89 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
Karnataka
Mandya
CC/10/89
Smt. Prabhavathi - Complainant(s)
Versus
CHESCOM - Opp.Party(s)
Sri M.J.Jain
16 Aug 2010
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA D.C.Office Compound, Opp. District Court Premises, Mandya - 571 401. consumer case(CC) No. CC/10/89
Smt. Prabhavathi
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
CHESCOM, CHESCOM., CHESCOM
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. Smt.A.P.Mahadevamma2. Sri.M.N.Manohara
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
ORDER 1. The Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the C.P.Act, against the Opposite parties seeking direction to immediately withdraw the power supplied to installation No.MP2309 and also to award compensation. 2. In the complaint amongst other facts, it is alleged that the Complainant is the owner of the property measuring 1.20 guntas situated at Somanahalli Village described in detailed in the first paragraph of the complaint. The Complainant entered into lease agreement with one A.M.Ramesh and Shivaramu in the year 2004 with certain terms and conditions, they were defaulters in payment of rent. The Complainant terminated the lease. The Complainant got the electricity disconnected to the said property. Electricity supply can be given with prior permission of the owner. Without consent and permission of the Complainant, Opposite parties have given electricity supply to the said property on the application of the lessee, it is illegal. 3. Considering the facts alleging the complaint and material on record. We have heard the learned advocate for the Complainant regarding admissibility and maintainability of the complaint also perused the records. 4. Now, we have to consider whether the complaint is admissible and maintainable? 5. Our finding on the point is in negative. Following reasons. REASONS 6. Admittedly, the electricity supply given by the Opposite parties is not to the present Complainant, but to the lessee on their application. At present, we are not concerned what had happened earlier. As noted above, even according to the Complainant, one of the lessee applied to the Opposite parties for electricity supply and that has been supplied through the installation in question and the circumstances important point that needs to be considered is whether the Complainant is a consumer? 7. The learned advocate for the Complainant with reference to the definition of the consumer given Sub-Section 15 of Section 2 of the Electricity Act, 2003 submitted that consumer is a person who is supplied with the electricity for his own house and includes any person whose premises or for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity. It is true, so far consent to the electricity act, consumer includes the owner of the premises. 8. But, the Complainant has filed the complaint under Section 12 of the C.P.Act, hence we have to consider who is the consumer under the C.P.Act. Under Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P.Act, consumer defined and (i) pertains to buying of the goods and then (ii) is relevant for our purpose. As provided there in consumer means any person who hires or avails of any service for consideration. Hence, to become a consumer under the C.P.Act, a person shall have to hire or avail any service for consideration. In the case on hand, even according to the Complainant, she has not hired or availed any service for consideration from the Opposite parties as regards the electricity supplied through the installation in question. So also, she has not at all paying any consideration for the said purpose. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the Complainant is not a consumer as defined in the C.P.Act. Since, the Complainant is not a consumer, she cannot maintain any complaint under Section 12 of the C.P.Act. 9. Further, it is relevant to note that on the application of the lessee, Opposite parties have sanctioned electricity. The lessee is consuming the electricity. In the present complaint, the Complainant has sought a direction to the Opposite parties to disconnect the electricity supply. In the absence of the lessee, whether such a direction could be given would be a question. We do consider that as pointed out by the learned advocate for the Complainant, consent of the owner is necessary, but in the absence of the lessee whether the relief sought can be granted needs to be considered. 10. Even otherwise as noted above, the Complainant being not a consumer as defined under the C.P.Act, the complaint is not maintainable. Accordingly, following order: ORDER The Complaint is dismissed.