IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 28th day of January, 2023
Present: Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
Sri.K.M. Anto, Member
CC No. 114/2019 (Filed on 19/07/2019)
Complainant : Mathew O.S, S/o Zacharia,
Oliyakkattil House,
Ramapuram Kara,
Ramapuram Village
Meenachil Taluk.
(By Adv.Jose Zacharias)
Vs
Opposite parties : 1. Assistant Engineer,
Electrical Section, Ramapuram
2. Kerala State Electricity Board Limited
Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram
(By Adv.Deepthi S Nath)
O R D E R
Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
Case of the complainant is as follows: Complainant is the owner of a saw mill having electricity connection of the first opposite party vide consumer no. 2655 LTE. He purchased the saw mill from one C.E. Thomas in the year 1980. On 19-03-2011 without the notice to the complainant and without any inspection he is served with notice demanding to pay Rs.18,930/. There is no details in the said bill except an entry that capacitor insufficient 4/08 to 1/11. The complainant was forced to pay the said bill only to avoid the disconnection of electricity energy. The complainant was regularly paying the entire energy bill which was issued by the opposite parties after the inspection of the Sub Engineer of the first opposite party. The first opposite party sanctioned installments on receiving a complaint from the complainant on 28-03-2011. Thereafter challenging the said order an appeal was filed before the Executive Engineer Pala on 23.04.2011. As there was no response complainant filed another complaint before the Executive Engineer on 23-4-2012. The same was also became vain. Then on 19.08.2013 the complainant filed another petition before the Deputy Chief Engineer, that was also became vain. When the complainant file a petition under the provisions of Right to Information Act his complaint was disposed on 02-08-2017.
The opposite parties without any basis alleged that there was a lack of electrical equipment in the saw mill of the complainant. The complainant was not informed about the time of the inspection. It is alleged in the complaint that the opposite parties without any reason came to a conclusion that the capacitor was defective since last three years. The opposite parties illegally issued the bill and the said act of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant praying for an order to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.63,390/- in various heads.
Upon notice opposite parties appeared before the commission and filed version as follows:
The complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not consumer as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The electrical connection vide consumer no.2655 was issued in the name of Thomas C.E under LT IV tariff. The complainant did not get transferred the said connection in his name. On inspection which was conducted by the regional audit officer of the second opposite party found that the 20% of excess fixed and the electricity charges is not collected from 04/08 to 01/2011 from the complainant as he has not connected the capacitor in accordance with Tariff order dated 26-11-2007 issued by the Kerala State Tariff Regulatory Commission. It is further reported by the Audit Officer that due to the lack of capacitor, on 03-02-2011 the Regional Audit Officer found that the 20% fixed and electricity charge was not collected from the complainant for the period of 4/08 to 01/11 for non fixing of capacitor with sufficient rating as per the tariff order dated 26-11-2007. Thus on 14-07-2011 a bill for an amount of Rs.18,390/- was issued to the complainant under regulation 134 of Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2014. The said amount was paid by the complainant on 04-07-2011.
The second opposite party allowed 4 installments to the complainant to remit the said amount when he lodged a complaint before the second opposite party on 28-03-2011. The opposite parties had issued the disputed bill after an inspection on the premises of the complainant and informed the complainant about the fixation of the capacitor in accordance with the tariff order. The complainant is liable to use the electrical energy as per the prevailing tariff for the industrial purpose. The complainant has no cause of action against the opposite parties and the complaint is barred by limitation. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exhibit A1 to A6 from the side of the complainant. K.V. Prathap Sing who is the in charge of the first opposite party filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination for and on behalf of the second opposite party and marked Exhibit B1 to B5 from the side of the opposite parties.
On the basis of the contention of the rival parties we framed the following issues for consideration.
- Whether the complaint is maintainable or not
- Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service as alleged?
- Regarding the relief and costs?
Point number 1.
It is contended by the opposite parties that the complaint does not come under the provisions of the consumer protection act as he is conducting a saw mill for commercial purpose and earning profit from the same. There is no dispute on the fact that the electrical connection vide consumer no.2655 was issued in the name of Thomas C.E, under LT IV tariff. As per the contention of the opposite party, the complainant does not fall under the definition of 'consumer', on the ground that he was using the electric connection for commercial purpose.
Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 defines consumer as follows:
Buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose.
Thus any person who avails the service for a commercial purpose is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 if the said service is not availed by him for his livelihood.
In Sanjay Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. UHBVN Ltd. & Anr. IV (2011) CPJ 333 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus:-
"Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1) (d) (ii), 21(b) - Electricity - Commercial Purpose - Penalty - District Forum quashed bills imposing penalty - State Commission set aside order on ground that complainant being a commercial entity and having availed services of Nigam purely for commercial purpose was not a consumer - Order passed by State Commission upheld.”
Herein case on hand neither in the complaint nor in the proof affidavit the complainant stated that the saw mill has been run by him by way of self employment for his livelihood. More over it is evident from Exhibit A1 that the electricity connection is in the name of one Thomas C.E under LT IV tariff. Though the complainant pleaded that he had purchased the saw mill from the said Thomas the complainant did not produce any evidence to prove that he is the beneficiary of the electrical connection availed by the said Thomas C.E.
On the basis of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties as defined in the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and complaint is not maintainable before this commission.
Point number 1 and 2
As we already found that the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission we are not inclined to look into point number 2 and 3.
In the result the complaint is dismissed as not maintainable before this Commission.
Pronounced in the open Commission on this the 28th day of January, 2023.
Sri.Manulal.V.S, President sd/-
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member sd/-
Sri.K.M. Anto, Member sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1- Copy of bill dated 19.03.2011.
A2- Copy of application dated 28.03.2011.
A3- Copy of application dated 23.01.2012.
A4- Copy of application dated 19.08.2013.
A5- Copy of order dated 07.07.2017 issued by KSEB
A6- Copy of letter dated 26.08.2017 issued by KSEB
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite parties
B1- Letter dated 20.02.2017 signed by Asst.Engineer, KSEB, Ramapuram
B2- Copy of letter dated 30.03.2017 signed by Asst.Engineer, KSEB, Ramapuram
B3- Copy of order dated 07.07.2017 issued by KSEB, Ramapuram
B4- Copy of letter dated 26.08.2017 signed by Asst.Engineer, KSEB, Ramapuram.
B5- Copy of Tariff order 2007-2008 of Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission.
By order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
