By. Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:-

Brief of the complaint:- The complaint is filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an Order directing the opposite parties not to disconnect the electricity connection in building No.SBP V/597-B 'Shas Collections' in the name of Kunhi Muhammed vide No.45-0, which is occupied by the complainant and to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings. The complainant was running a stationery, Fancy, Bag and Sweets shop in the above premises for the last 8 years. The connection is in the name of one Kunhi Muhammed vide No.45-0. The complainant was remitting the charges very promptly without any due. On 23.09.2013 a lineman from the opposite party's office came to the shop and informed the complainant that he is going to disconnect the connection due to a complaint received from someone within 3 days. If the opposite party do so, it will cause irreparable loss and damages to the complainant. Hence this complaint.

2. The opposite party appeared before the Forum on Notice and filed version and a petition to take the maintainability as a preliminary issue. In the version, the opposite party contented that the complainant have no locus standi to file the complaint since the complainant is not a consumer of opposite party. The connection is in the name of Kunhi Muhammed. The complainant has to prove his tenancy. No official or lineman of KSEB has inspected the premises and informed the complainant that the connection will be disconnected. No electricity charge is due in the connection. There is no such order from the KSEB, department. There is no cause of action for this complaint. The opposite party also filed I.A.69/2014 for hearing on maintainability of complaint. Notice issued to the complainant and complainant not filed counter. The I.A 69/2014 is posted for hearing on 01.03.2014, 05.04.2014, 03.05.2014, 17.05.2014, 28.05.2014 and 21.06.2014 but the complainant not appeared before the Forum and argued the matter. The opposite party heard on 21.06.2014 and the I.A.69/2014 is posted for orders on 28.06.2014 and 05.07.2014.

3. On 05.07.2014, the Forum allowed I.A 69/2014. Apart from that, on considering the merit of the case, the opposite party pleaded that there is no cause of action for the complaint and no men or officer from opposite party ever inspected the premises and threatened the complainant to disconnect the supply. No additional Bill or disconnection notice is given by opposite party. When opposite party denied the alleged inspection, it is up to the complainant to prove the inspection. But on perusal of complaint and documents filed by the complainant, the Forum found that the complaint did not even cited the name of lineman or details of lineman who made the alleged inspection. The complainant did not cited the name of any witness who had seen the incident. The complainant did not produce any evidence to prove the cause of action. So the complainant miserably failed to prove the cause of action of complaint. The connection to the premises is given to one Kunhi Muhammed and the complainant is not a consumer of opposite party. The complainant stated that he is occupying the premises for the last 8 years. But the complainant did not produced any document to prove the tenancy or the derivation of right over the premises. So on considering all these aspects, the Forum is of the opinion that the above complaint is not maintainable in this Forum and hence the I.A No.69/2014 is allowed.

Since the I.A No.69/2014 is allowed, the complaint is dismissed.