IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 30th day of May, 2015
Filed on 25.07.2012
Present
1.Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2.Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3.Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.258/2012
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. N. Sreekumaran 1. The Secretary, KSEB
Villannoortharayil House Vaidhyuthi Bhavan
Pilappuzha Muri, Haripad Village Thiruvananthapuram
Karthikappally Taluk, Alappuzha
Now residing at No. 114, Bhaskar Colony 2. The Asst. Executive Engineer
Third Street, Virugambakom Electrical Sub Section
Chennai, Represented by his Power of KSEB., Haripad – 690 514
Attorney Holder Santhakumar (By Adv. Jayan C. Das – for
Rose Bhavan, Klappana P.O. opposite parties 1 and 2)
Klappana Village, Karunagappally Taluk
Kollam District
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant is a business man conducting retail out let of Hindustan Petroleum in the name and style as Santhi fuels at Thamallackal in Karuvatta at Alappuzha District as a means of livelihood by means of self employment and as such the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As per standard lay out of a HP Petrol pump the total requirement of electricity is 15 KW and the same was duly informed to the second opposite party. But second opposite party had informed the complainant that they requested the complainant for allocation to the extent of 15 KW is not feasible according to the load condition prevailing then. The complainant was advised to apply for the 100 KW transformer on OYEC basis which will incur a financial liability to the tune of lakhs. Thus the complainant was constrained to purchase 20 KVA generator from the Kirlosker company after obtaining permission from the authorities. The consumption of the petrol pump had never gone beyond 6 KVA bimonthly. The electricity bills issued to the complainant were properly paid and a close perusal of the same, it will be clear that the consumption is below 3 KW monthly. The finding of the inspection team was solely designed to penalize the complainant for no fault of his. The complainant was charged with penalty charges from September, 2008 to March, 2011 had come to the tune of Rs.1,39,896/-. The deeds of the opposite parties and levying of additional fixed charges and additional energy charges are against liability and amounts to deficiency in service. The denial of electricity to the petrol pump of the complainant had caused heavy financial losses to the complainant and it had created heavy atmospheric hazards to the whole locality because of the continuous use of the generator for more than 18 hours per day. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, hence the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the second opposite parties is as follows:-
The complainant approached the Forum without any cause of action and alleged it barred by limitation. The complainant had availed electrical connection under LT VIIA tariff and the electric energy is used for a profit making business. Since the complainant is using electrical energy for commercial purpose and not for earning his livelihood, but for earning profit the complainant is not a consumer. The electric connection to the petrol pump was effected during 6/07 with LT VIIA tariff with 3 KW connected load. The power of attorney holder applied for a power allocation of 15KW during 2007. The complainant was informed the condition of the transformer and he was requested to install the additional transformer or to enhance the capacity of existing transformer so as to meet the complainant’s load requirements upon his payment. Complainant disagreed to the matter and revised his load requirement to 3KW and hence allotted the 3 KW load from K.V. Jetty transformer itself. On 25.9.2008 the Asst. Executive Engineer made an inspection and found that the consumer had a connected load of 13.481 KW instead of 3 KW. Accordingly they issued a bill for Rs.66,808/-. Complainant filed an appeal and the bill was revised. Then the revised of Rs.35,635/- was remitted by the complainant. In the inspection it was found that the complainant was using electrical energy after effecting unauthorized additional load of 11 KW. There is neither any negligence nor any latches on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed.
3. The complainant’s power of attorney holder was examined as PW1. The documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A11. On the side of the opposite parties, the Asst. Executive Engineer was examined as RW1. The documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B6.
4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties?
3) If so the reliefs and costs?
5. Point No.1:- The complainant admitted in the complaint that he is a business man conducting retail out let of Hindustan Petroleum (Petrol Pump). As per Section 2(1) (d)(i), “Consumer” means any person who –
“(i) 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
Explanation – For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment;”
6. In this case from the averments itself it is clear that the complainant is conducting a retail out let of Hindustan Petroleum. According to the complainant he is conducting the said business as a means of livelihood by means of self employment. Opposite parties filed version stating that the complainant is using the electrical energy for commercial purpose and not for earning his livelihood but for earning profit. Complainant’s power of attorney holder filed the complaint. According to the complainant due to his hectic schedule, he has executed a power of attorney for conducting his case. The power of attorney holder alone was examined as PW1. His evidence is not satisfactory to prove the allegations that income derived from the business is for the livelihood of the complainant. The complainant did not enter the witness box to give evidence to prove the disputed facts. On verifying the Ext.A1 power of attorney, we came to see that the complainant was residing at Chennai. Apart from the above, it is an admitted fact that the electrical energy is used by the complainant for running a petrol pump. The dispute is with regard to the electricity bill issued to the complainant towards consumption of electrical energy. Complainant has been utilizing the energy supplied by the opposite party for the purpose of his business necessities. Since the electric connection is used by the complainant to generate profit directly, the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act.
7. The point No.1 has been decided against the complainant and the complainant was held to be not a consumer as defined by the provisions of the C. P. Act. As such there need be no discussion any further and the result is the dismissal of the complaint.
In the result, complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the day 30th of May, 2015.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Santhakumaran (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of the power of attorney
Ext.A2 - Copy of the letter dated 14.11.2007
Ext.A3 - Proceedings of the Electrical Inspector, Alappuzha
Ext.A4 - Letter dated 8.5.2009
Ext.A5 - Copy of the bill for Rs.66,808/-
Ext.A6 series - Bills
Ext.A7 - Copy of the site mahazor
Ext.A8 - Letter dated 3.4.2010
Ext.A9 - Copy of the letter 7.5.2010
Ext.A10 - Copy of the letter dated 18.10.2008
Ext.A11 - Letter dated 2.7.2010
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Vinu. V. Unnithan (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Copy of the site mahazor
Ext.B2 - Copy of the calculation statement regarding the penal bill
Ext.B3 - Penal bill as per the calculation sheet
Ext.B4 - Copy of the Reply given by the Executive Engineer, Mavelikara
Ext.B5 - Copy of the connected ACD Register
Ext.B6 - Copy of Transformer Register
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-pg/-
