D.O.F:25/09/2024
D.O.O:06/11/2024
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.361/2024
Dated this, the 06th day of November 2024
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
- Rubeena T A, aged 42 years
D/o Thidil Abdul Rahiman & Safiya K A
W/o Abdul Maneer,
Thidil House, Juma Masjid Road,
Kottikulam, Bekal Post,
Hosdurg Taluk, Kasaragod – 671315.
- Tharif K A, aged 40 years
D/o Thidil Abdul Rahiman & Safiya K A
Thidil House, Juma Masjid Road,
Kottikulam, Bekal Post,
Hosdurg Taluk, Kasaragod – 671315.
- Thouseef T, aged 24 years
S/o Thidil Abdul Rahiman & Safiya K A
Thidil House, Juma Masjid Road,
Kottikulam, Bekal Post,
Hosdurg Taluk, Kasaragod – 671315.
(Adv: Ambili K M): Complainants
And
- Khairunnisa M A, aged 31 years,
W/o Mohinudheen Rahiman (L)
Thidil Garden, Badriya Nagar,
Pakyara, Bekal Post,
Kotikulam Village, Hosdurg,
Kasaragod – 671315.
(Adv: C Shukkur)
- The Assistant Engineer,
Uduma Sub Division Electricity Board,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Uduma Post,
Kasaragod – 671319.
- Kerala State Electricity Board,
Uduma Sub Division Electricity Board,
Uduma Post,
Kasaragod – 671319.
(Adv: Jithesh Babu P K): Opposite Parties
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
The facts of the case is that the complainants are the sister and brothers of opposite party No. 1’s deceased husband Abdul Rahiman. The deceased Abdul Rahiman having a building in Survey No. 235/2 (old 150/5B). The above said building was broken by opposite party No.1 and obtained electricity connection by using the tax receipt of late Abdul Rahiman. The electricity connection was obtained in the building by opposite party No. 1 by producing Adhar card and tax receipt of building before opposite party No. 2. Allegation is that opposite party No. 2 sanctioned electricity connection without verifying the legality of the documents submitted by opposite party No. 1. The complainant filed complaint before SHO and opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 given reply that opposite party No.1 had produced the necessary documents and there is no illegality in sanctioning the connection.
The complainant further states that the above said building is given for rent by opposite party No.1 and getting monthly rent of Rs. 15,000/-which caused monitory loss and mental agony and inconvenience to the complainant for which complainant is seeking a direction to opposite party to disconnect the electricity connection. (In the complaint it is seeking direction against opposite party No. 6, but there is only 3 opposite parties in the cause title). And to conduct enquiry on the electricity connection and compensation and cost of the litigation.
The complainant filed IA 264/2024 along with complaint for an order directing opposite party No. 2 to disconnect the electricity connection. The grievance narrated in the IA is same as in the main complaint.
Emergent notice was issued to opposite parties.
The opposite party No.1 to 3 appeared and filed their counter. For opposite party No.1, Adv. Shukkur and for opposite party No.2 to 3 Adv. Jithesh Babu filed vakalath and counter strongly to opposing the petition. The opposite party No. 1 filed IA 304/2024 and opposite party No. 2 and 3 filed IA 305/2024 to consider the maintainability of the complaint alleging that complainants are not consumers and dispute involved in the complaint is not a consumer dispute.
Heard the respective counsels in detail. From the rival contentions the short question arised for consideration is;
- Whether dispute involved in the complaint is a consumer dispute?
- Whether complaint is maintainable before DCDRC?
For convenience both issues are discussed together and findings recorded accordingly:
It is very interesting to note that no were in the pleadings there is a single word that complainants are consumers of opposite parties or availed any service or purchased any good for consideration from opposite parties.
CP Act 2019 section 2(7) defines consumer as under;
“Consumer” means any person who-
- buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
- hires or avail of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promise, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other that the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.
The above said definition states that for a consumer he must purchase any good or avail service for consideration. In this complaint the complainants had not purchased or availed any service from opposite parties.
On going through pleading, it states that there is property issue between the family members of deceased Abdul Rahiman. And there are judgements by courts on that regard.
The dispute involved in the complaint is purely civil in nature and it is highly complicated. Therefore such matters are not maintainable by the Consumer Commission.
Hence IA 264/2024, dismissed and IA 304/2024 and 305/2024 stand allowed. Holding that complaint is not maintainable before DCDRC. Therefore, complaint is dismissed without order as to cost.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
JJ/
