O R D E R

Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

                The complainant Abdul Salim, S/o. Shahul Hameed Rawther, Al Ameen Manzil, Kannamkodu, Adoor counter petitioners (1) Kersla State Electricity Board represented by which Executive Engineer, Adoor Division. (2) Asst. Engineer K.S.E.B, Adoor Division.  The complainant filed this petition u/s.12 of the C.P. Act. 

       The case of the complainant is as follows:  The complainant is the consumer of K.S.E.B bearing Con.No.27597 of Adoor Division.  According to him, he was regularly remitted the electricity charge to the concerned.  As per bill No.804082 dated 17.02.2014 a bill for Rs.1,294/- has been issued to the complainant on 13.03.2014 and the complainant remitted the said amount.  The contention of the complainant is that his average consumption of electricity unit is 298 to 300 unit per month.  But on 26.03.2014, the 2^nd opposite party issued an electricity bill for an amount of Rs.19,771/- as an additional bill to the complainant.  In respect of that bill he has given complaint to the concerned orally as well as in writing.  But the authorities concerned not considered his grievances or redressed it.  Moreover, 2^nd opposite party has given a direction to stop the power supply, if he would not remit the said amount.  In order to avoid this disconnection he was compel to remit the amount in instalment by Rs.2,626/- per month.  The complainant further submitted that he is a domestic consumer of the Electricity Board but without considering this aspect the electricity board committed serious irregularities and negligence in calculating his meter reading and impose high charges against him.  According to him, the additional bill amount of Rs.19,771/- has to be refunded to him with reasonable interest.  The opposite parties did irregularities and deficiency in service in which he is eligible to get Rs.10,000/- as compensation from the opposite parties.

        In this case, the opposite parties entered appearance and filed a maintainability petition challenging the competency of the complaint to file this complainant.  Their case is as follows:  The petition filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the petition is lack of bonafides and with malicious intention in order to mislead this Forum, the complainant filed this petition.

        The main contention raised by the opposite party is that the complaint against the assessment u/s.126 of the Electricity Act or against the offences committed u/s.135 to 140 of Electricity Act are not maintainable or comes under Consumer Forum.  In order to substantiate their argument, the opposite party cited a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2013(3)KLT SN 29.  It is crystal clear from that decision that the electricity assessment u/s.126 or committing offence u/s.135 to 140 of Electricity Act 2003 do not come under complaint as defined in Sec.2(1)(c) of the C.P. Act 1986.  The main argument put forward by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party is that the complainant has not a domestic consumer but he is a commercial consumer (other categories). 

        At this stage, when the main points or issues to be considered for trial is the question of maintainability.  It has to be decided by this Forum.  In that aspect, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is very clear and the argument put forward by the opposite parties to the effect that the complainant not comes under the purview of the C.P. Act 1986 is reliable.  This Forum has given sufficient time to the complainant to give reply to the maintainability petition filed by the opposite parties but the complainant not turned up for this purpose.  Even in the absence of the complainant we peruse the pleadings and documents before the Forum produced by the complainant.  We considered the pleading and relief put forward by the complainant and the objection and argument raised by the learned counsel appear for the opposite parties then we find that the complainant in this case not comes under the definition of Consumer Protection Act 1986 Sec.2(1)(c).  Hence the complaint is dismissed and no order of cost.

        Declared in the Open Forum on this the 20^th day of February, 2015.

                                                                (Sd/-)

                                                P. Satheesh Chandran Nair, 

                                                                    (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I)    :    (Sd/-)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II)      :     (Sd/-)

Appendix – Nil.

                                                                                 (By Order)

                                                                                     (Sd/-)

                                                                     Senior Superintendent

Copy to:- (1) Abdul Salim, Al Ameen Manzil, Kannamkodu,

                    Adoor.                                                         

           (2) Executive Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board,

            Adoor Division.

1. Asst. Engineer, K.S.E.B., Adoor Division,

            Adoor.P.O., Pin – 691 523.

       (4) The Stock File.