IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 29 day of May, 2014
Filed on 19.10.2011
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Xavier Antony (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.340/2011
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. Varghese P. Dominic 1. Kerala State Electricity Board
Proprietor, Pozhiyoram Beach Resort Vaidhyuthi Bhavan, Pattom
Thumpoly, Alappuzha Pattam – Murinjapalam Road
(By Adv. P.C. Giji) Thiruvananthapuram
Represented by its Secretary
2. The Assistant Engineer
Electrical Section, Pathirappally
Alappuzha
(By Adv. A. Anilkumar – for
Opposite parties)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant is running a beach side report in the name and style “Pozhiyoram Beach Resort at Thumpoly, Alappuzha. On 18.7.2011, the Anti Power Theft Squad along with the officials from the office of the 2nd opposite party conducted an inspection at the resort and found that there was theft of energy in the resort run by the complainant and as a result they have assessed the daily consumption at the resort at the rate of 16 hours per day on the basis of usage of 70% of the connected load. On the basis of this assessment, the complainant was ordered to remit a total amount of Rs.3,72,304/- immediately, without even affording him an opportunity to challenge the above order. He was compelled to raise such a huge amount within 24 hours and his supply was also disconnected forthwith thereby causing him much hardship and damages and metal agony. The reason for such an assessment was that the meter is tampered. There was an inspection conducted by the 2nd opposite party on 18.1.2010 at his resort. At that time, it was mentioned in the site mahazor prepared by the Assistant Engineer in clause 3 of that mahazor that the meter has been damaged. Even though they have found that the meter is damaged, no actions were taken from their part to replace the meter till 18.7.2011 when they conducted a combined raid at the resort. Had they changed the meter immediately after 18.1.2010, the present situation would not have happened. The complainant seriously suspect some extraneous foul play in this matter and seriously believe that some one has purposefully done this to tarnish the reputation of his business. The complainant most respectfully submit that he will not do any such act of tampering the meter as he is very much aware of the consequences of doing such an illegal act. More over there is grave deficiency of service on the part of the 2nd opposite party who has found that the meter is faulty in the inspection conducted by them on 18.1.2010 itself. It was their duty to replace the meter when they themselves are aware of the fact that the meter installed at the premises of the complainant is damaged or faulty. Without discharging their duty, they have jointly conducted another raid after one year and charged the complainant with exorbitant fine and also made him remit the amount without affording him an opportunity to challenge the order and its illegality even though there is a provision to do that as per law. The opposite parties are not entitled to charge any amount for the reason that they have found the meter as damaged or faulty during their inspection conducted on 18.1.2010 itself and did not move their little finger to change the meter. Again on 18.7.2011, they have conducted a raid, pretending as if they are not aware of the fact that the meter installed at the premises of the complainant is damaged, again charged the complainant with heavy fine. This is fraudulent and illegal and the amount so charged from the complainant is illegally charged and the complainant is entitled to get it back with interest @ 12% p.a. from the opposite party as there is grave deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party and its officers in not changing the damaged meter which has cause such a heavy blow on the complainant. Hence the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable. Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints regarding the theft of knowledge. The tariff allotted is LT.VII A (commercial) with registered connected load of 2760 watts. The premises is used for running a resort. The consumer had availed electric connection under LT.VII A tariff and the electric energy is being used for a profit making business. The complainant himself admitted that he is running a beach side resort in the name and style “Pozhiyoram Beach Resort”. Since the complainant is using electrical energy for commercial purpose, the complainant is not a consumer as defined under section 2 (d) (1) of the Consumer Protection Act and on this ground alone the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine.
Heard both parties.The complainant admitted in the complaint that he is running a beach sideresort in the name and style Pozhiyoram Beach Resort, Thumpoly at Alappuzha.On verifying the disputed bill issued by the opposite parties, it is seen that the tariff allotted to the complainant is LT.VII A.According to the opposite parties the tariff allotted is LT.VII A (commercial) with registered load of 2760 watts.So it is clear that the power connection in question is a non domestic one.The complainant has no case that he is running the resort for earning his livelihood.Thus as per the provisions of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer.
In the result, complaint is dismissed, since it is not maintainable.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and
pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of May, 2014.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
