IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Monday  the 28^th  day of  December, 2015

Filed on 09.01.2014

Present

1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)

in

C.C.No.12/2014

between

     Complainant:-                                                                  Opposite Parties:-

Smt. Sarasamma N.S.                                                 1.         Kerala State Electricity Board

W/o Sri. Prakashan. P.                                                            Thiruvananthapuram

Muttasseri, Oorukkary P.O.                                                    Represented by its Secretary

Alappuzha District                                                                  Vaidhyuthi Bhavan, Pattom

(By Adv. Bijily Joseph)                                                          Thiruvananthapuram

                                                                                    2.         The Asst. Executive Engineer

                                                                                                KSEB., Monkombu

                                                                                                Kuttanad, Alappuzha

                                                                        3.         The Asst. Engineer, KSEB

                                                                                    Kidangara, Kuttanad, Alappuzha

                                                                        4.         Sri. P.A. Ouseph, Sub Engineer-in-charge

                                                                                    KSEB., Kidangara, Alappuzha Dt.

                                                                                    (By Adv. Jayan. C. Das – for opposite

                                                                                     parties 1 to 4)

O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)

            The case of the complainant is as follows:-

The complainant is conducting a Flour Mill for her own livelihood and has electric connection of the third opposite party as Consumer No. 11032 LT IV.  Complainant’s husband is conducting a stationery shop in a newly building for last 6 months.  Since the title deed of the property was pledged they did not take the electric connection said shop room.  On 4.1.2014 the 4^th opposite party due to some vengeance against the complainant,  prepared a fake report and on the basis of that   report issued additional bill for Rs.47,450/-.  Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties the complaint is filed.       

          2.  The version of the opposite parties is as follows:- 

The complaint is not maintainable because the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.  Complainant was found using electric connection unauthorizedly for the purpose of getting connection in the newly constructed shop room.  On getting knowledge about it, the 4th opposite party inspected the premises and a site mahazor was prepared and additional bill for Rs.47,450/- was given to the complainant as per Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 

            3.    The complainant’s husband was examined as PW1.  The documents marked as Ext.A1 to A3.  The opposite party was examined as RW1 and one document is produced marked as Ext.B1.   

            4.    The point for consideration is whether the complaint is maintainable?

             5.  Along with the complaint, complainant has filed a petition as IA No.93/2014 restraining the opposite parties from disconnecting the electric connection, and the IA was allowed.  According to the complainant, she is conducting a Flour Mill and she is regularly paying the electric bills.  Her husband is conducting a bakery shop in newly constructed building near to the shop coom of the complainant.   She also admitted that there is no electric connection in the shop room of her husband.  According to the opposite parties, the complainant is unauthorizedly using the electric connection to the shop room of her husband and hence they issued notice for additional bill as per Section 126 of the Electricity Act.   In this case, the complainant is challenging the electricity bills pertain to the unauthorized use and also assessment made u/s 126 of the Electricity Act,   Hon’ble Apex Court in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Anis Ahammed in III 2013 CPJ(1) held that. “Consumer complaints challenging assessment made u/s 126 of the Electricity Act are not maintainable.”  In the present case undisputedly the complainant has challenged the additional bill which was issued by the opposite parties on the basis of assessment made u/s 126 of Electricity Act.    

In view of the undisputed fact and recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court it is obvious that consumer complaint itself is not maintainable.  Hence the complaint is dismissed with liberty to file before appropriate forum.

Dictated  to  the   Confidential   Assistant   transcribed   by   her   corrected  by  me and

pronounced in open Forum on this the 28^th  day of December, 2015.                                                                                                                            

     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:-