KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACAUD THIRVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.679/2013

JUDGMENT DATED: 27.06.2014

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.128/2013 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram order dated : 04.02.2013)

PRESENT

SMT.A.RADHA  : MEMBER

Muhammed Gadhafi.M,

Mecheri house,

Thurakkal, Manjeri,

Malappuram District

Represented by Power of Attorney holder

P.Gopalakrishnan,

S/o.Narayanan Nair,

Amritha Bhavan,                                                        APPELLANT

Karikkad, Trikkalangode.P.O

Malappuram

(By Adv.Sri.K.T.Sidhiq, Kochi)

Vs.

1. Kerala State Electricity Board,

Rep.by Assistant Executive Engineer,

Manjeri, Manjeri.P.O

Malappuram

Pin – 676 121                                                           RESPONDENTS

2. Assistant Engineer,

KSEB Electrical Section,

Manjeri North,

Manjeri.P.O,

Malappuram, Pin – 676 121

(By Adv.Sri.B.Sakthidharan Nair, Tvpm)

JUDGMENT

SMT.A.RADHA  : MEMBER

          Aggrieved by the dismissal order of the complaint the Appellant / complainant filed this appeal against the order in CC.No.128/2013 passed by the CDRF, Malappuram.

          2. The complaint is filed before the District Forum for quashing the demand notice issued by the opposite parties for the consumption of electricity in Consumer No.13240. The complainant was conducting a petrol bunk and was having a connected load of electricity 3150 watts and increased to 15598 watts. On inspection it was found out by the opposite parties that the meter was not working and on 01.01.2013 changed the meter. The complainant was remitting the bills regularly. When the new electronic meter came into existence the meter was changed and thereafter on 30.05.2013 the opposite parties issued a bill for Rs.1,31,817/- to be remitted on or before 15.06.2013. It is stated in the complaint that the complainant is not liable to pay the amount claimed in the bill. The act of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service causing mental agony and financial loss which is to be compensated and prayed for Rs.15,000/-.

          3.      Though notice was issued, no vakkalath or version filed by opposite parties, whereas the opposite parties represented on 24.10.2013. However the complainant was heard and on the question of maintainability the Forum Below dismissed the complaint. This was challenged by the complainant in appeal.

          4.      The counsel for the appellant / complainant strongly argued on the technicality of the order passed by the District Forum Below on the ground that the order was signed by the President  of the District Forum only. In this case, the matter was heard and the order was passed by the President of the District Forum alone and it is clear violation of Sec 14 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act. He also argued that it is not a case of unauthorized use of electricity as envisaged under section 126 of the Electricity Act nor the case comes under section 135 of the above Act. The District Forum had not considered these matters and passed the order without giving opportunity to adduce evidence in support of the case. As the order of District Forum stands illegal, the counsel prayed for a remand of the case in order to adduce evidence before the Forum Below.

          5.      Resisting the arguments, the counsel for the respondent submitted that the complainant is relying on the technicality of the order passed by the District Forum. The counsel submitted that any dispute coming under section 126 of the Electricity Act is restricted to adjudicate before the Consumer Fora. He relied on the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Vs.Anis Ahamed  [ 2013(3) KLT SN 29.SC] wherein a complaint against assessment made by assessing officer under 126 or against the offences committed under section 135 to 140 of Electricity Act is not maintainable before the Consumer Fora. It is clear from the complaint itself that the case is based on the issuance of a bill for Rs.1,31,817/- towards the assessment made by the concerned official of the respondent / opposite parties. Hence the complaint is only to be dismissed in-limine.

          6.      Heard both counsels and had gone through the entire documents on record. We are of the considered view that the Consumer Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under section 126 of the Electricity Act. There is apparent technical error in the order passed by the Forum Below by passing the order by President alone. On hearing the counsels for both parties at this stage we find that the complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum relying on the decision of the Hob’ble Supreme Court. Hence appeal is dismissed and the complaint is also dismissed.

          7.      The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Forum below along with LCR.

A.RADHA  : MEMBER

Be/

KERALA STATE

 CONSUMER DISPUTES

 REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHARLANE

 VAZHUTHACAUD

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.679/2013

JUDGMENT DTD: 27.06.2014

                                                                                                Be/