BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDCRESSAL FORUM,
 ERNAKULAM
                                                                    Date of filing   : 18.03.2013      
                                                                     Date of Order : 12.02.2016
Present :-
                            Shri Cherian K. Kuriakose                  President
                           Shri Sheen Jose                                 Member
                     Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari                     Member
                                              C.C. 225/2013
                                                                      Between
Ajith Thacholi                                     ::    Complainant
Campus International,                                (By Adv. Varghese Prem)
XL/7182, Casablanca (2nd Floor),
M.G. Road,  Ernakulam – 35.
                                                          And
Kerala State Electricity Board         ::     Opposite Party      
Rep. by its Assistant Engineer,                  (By Adv. Ieans C. Chamakkala,
Electrical Section Centre, KSEB,                1st floor, Prabath Bldgs., TD
Ernakulam.                                                   Road, Cochin – 11.)
                                                                 O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President
    The complainant's case is as follows:
    The complainant  is running an educational  consultancy  by way of self employment for his livelihood.  A short assessment bill was  issued to him on  19.02.2013 alleging  unauthorized additional load. The bill was issued to the  complainant  in consumer No. 15210  by the  Electricity Board/Opposite party.  Now the opposite party is raising a claim  of Rs. 2,00,294/-  alleging that additional connected load was detected on 23.08.2005.  The above proceedings  of the opposite party is  unlawful, arbitrary and  in total  negation of  principals of natural justice and there is a   clear deficiency in service.    On 23.08.2006  Special Squad inspected the premises and hence detected this unauthorized additional connected load and  the complainant was   directed to make a payment of Rs.  3150/- towards penal charges which  included 1.5 times the rate applicable to the respective tariff for the past six months  immediately prior to 23.08.2006.  The complainant had   paid the entire amount as per the direction of the opposite party and had removed the anomalies  of the additional connected  load.  Thereafter there was no further demand by the  opposite party against the complainant until the demand complained of in this case.   The action of the opposite party in demanding Rs. 2,00,294/- on  19.02.2013 on the basis of the  so called detection  of additional connected load on 23.08.2006 is illegal and is not  recoverable from the  complainant as it  amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Hence the complaint.
    2. Notice was  issued to the opposite party, Kerala State Electricity Board.  It appeared and  resisted the claim by filing a version  by filing aa version contending as follows:-
    The complaint is not maintainable and is without any bonafides.  There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party.  The complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the  Consumer Protection Act and also within the meaning of the definition in Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005.  Since the complainant had availed the  electricity supply for the purpose of  commercial activities.  Unauthorised additional  connection load of  7 KW was detected against the  authorised connected load of 2 KW  such detection was on 23.08.2006 and the complainant was  charged with penal charges.  Bills were issued to the complainant  only with the fixed charge for 2 KW Was actually  connected load.  Therefore the complainant was being under charge by issuing bills pertaining to the connected loan of 2 KW  Under Regulation 51(2) penalty for unauthorized additional load shall be levied till the said unauthorised additional load shall be levied till the said  unauthorised additional load is removed or regularised as per Rules.  In this case the complainant did not remove the additional connected load and  accordingly a demand of Rs. 2,00,294/- was issued for which the opposite party is entitled under section 126(6) of the Electricity Act, 2006  and also as per the relevant provisions of the  Regulation.  When an amount of Rs. 3150/- was imposed  on the complainant as penalty.  The complainant did not raise any objection.  Therefore a short assessment  bill  dated 19.02.2013 is  perfectly legal and valid. The complainant did not intimate the  opposite party  regarding the  removal of unauthorized additional load.  Therefore the  imposition of penalty which was continuing with the regularisation is to be paid for the  adjusted connected load.    The audit inspection revealed that there was error in the  preparation of the bills causing loss to the Electricity Board.  If there is an error in the  mistake  it has to be rectified and  separate.  Therefore the demand of this amount by the opposite party which is under challenge is perfectly legal and enforceable.  The complaint is therefore  sought to be dismissed.
    3. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence  of the  complainant and Exts. A1 to A5 on the side of the complainant.   The opposite party did not adduce any evidence.
    4. Heard  the learned Counsel on both sides
          5. The following issues are settled  for consideration :-
    i. Whether the complainant  is maintainable ?
            ii. Did the complainant proved that there was any sort  of
                deficiency on the part of  the opposite party as alleged ?
           iii. Reliefs and costs.
          6.  Issue No. (i)  :   The preliminary  allegation against the complainant was that, he was not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act.  It was further submitted that since the complainant was not  arguing any contractual nexus with the  opposite party.    The complainant cannot be heard to say  that he was  a  consumer within the meaning of the  Consumer Protection Act  and also under the  Kerala Electricity Supply Act.  The complainant had produced 5 documents as Exts. A1 to A5.   It is seen that the consumer number referred to in this case having  No.  15210 was issued in the name of one Mr. Nilesh Desai.  The demand  of Rs. 2,00,294/-    dated 19.02.2013 is seen issued in the name of Nilesh Desai who is the registered consumer as seen from Ext. A1.    Ext. A2  letter issued by the  Sub Engineer, Electrical Section, Central Ernakulam dated 19.02.2013 demanding to pay Rs. 2,00,294/- within 30 days is also seen issued to  Shri Nilesh Desai.  Ext. A3 issued  on 26.08.2006 demanding the  payment of Rs. 3150/- for the additional connected loan of  7 KW Is also seen issued in the name of  Shri Nilesh Desai, M/s. Campus International, M.G. Road, Ernakulam.  Ext. A4 bill dated 23.09.2006 is also seen issued in the name of Shri Nilesh Desai so as the case with Ext. A5 bills.   Though the complainant had produced Exts. A1 to A5 there is nothing in evidence to show that the complainant  Ajith Thacholi, the complainant herein has anything to do with  M/s.  Campus International and also with the  consumer No. 15210.  The learned Counsel for the  complainant had submitted that  he was  running an educational consultancy  service for his livelihood.  On going through the  proof affidavit filed by him we are unable to find any averment to show that he was the owner of the said  Firm/Establishment.  Therefore we find that the complainant has filed this complaint only as a   test case taking advantage of the  concession  given to the consumers under the  Consumer Protection Act marring the judicial  time  of deserving  public.  We find the issue No. (i) against the complainant.
    7. Issue Nos. (ii) :    On going through the documents it is seen that the complainant  Shri Ajith Thacholi has nothing to do with the Electricity Board/opposite party in the matter of  payment of arrears or in the matter of replying any  queries  by the Electricity Board.  We find that the complainant was made by the real owner/ consumer as  stodge in filing this  complaint without  any merit.    We take   understand as to why Shri Nilesh Desai, who is the registered consumer is not made a party to the proceedings.  We smell a rat and foul play in the matter and therefore we find this issue against the complainant.
    8. Issue No. (iii) :  For the  reasons stated in answer to issue Nos. (i) and (ii),  we find that the  complaint deserves dismissal and the  opposite party/Electricity Board is entitled to  realize the entire costs for this unmerited litigation from the complainant personally by invoking  the provisions under section 25 or 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.    We estimate the cost to Rs. 2000/-.          
     Pronounced in open Forum,  on this the 12th day of February, 2016.

                                                      Sd/- Cherian K. Kuriakose, President
                                                      Sd/-  Sheen Jose, Member
                                                      Sd/-  Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member

                                                           Forwarded/By Order

                                                          Senior Superintendent

Date of Despatch of the Order  :
By Hand / By Post                     :

                                                                  APPENDIX
Complainant's Exhibits :-
    Exhibit A1      :  Demand and Disconnection Notice        
    Exhibit A2     :  Letter        
    Exhibit A3      :  Provisional invoice    
         Exhibit A4      :  Bill        
         Exhibit A5  series      :  Demand and disconnection notices         
Opposite parties Exhibits :-  Nil             
Depositions                        :-  Nil
            

                                                  ….:....