By Sri. Jose V. Thannikode, President:

The complaint is filed against the Opposite Party to cancel the bill issued to the Complainant by alleging deficiency of service from the side of Opposite party.

2. The complainant is the consumer of electric connection No.2798 of Meenangadi Electric section, which is a domestic connection under LT -1A Tarrif. The 1^st Opposite Party has issued a provisional bill dated 16.01.2013 demanding the Complainant to pay Rs.58,500/- stating unauthorized use of Electricity. Though the Complainant has challenged the same, the 1^st Opposite Party has insisted the Complainant to pay off the amount or otherwise he was threatened that they will disconnect the Electricity connection. Anyway the Complainant has paid the amount under protest and on his further enquiry the opposite party No.1 has stated  orally that the provisional bill is issued for the unauthorized use of electricity by the Complainant for building construction purpose. It is humbly submitted that the complainant has not consumed any unit of electricity for the purpose of the building construction and he has not received any notice of inspection or report to that effect. The act of the Opposite Party No.1 is unfair trade practice and gross deficiency of service on their part. Due to the unfair trade practice of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant has to undergone great physical and mental strain which cannot be equated on terms of money. More over, the complainant has to spend money to approach the 1^st Opposite Party on several occasions in addition to the amount of Rs.58,500/- that he paid under protest. The 1^st opposite party is liable to withdraw the above said baseless demand notice and to return the amount to the Complainant with compensation to the complainant for suffering undergone by him. Though the mental, physical and economical sufferings cannot be compensated on terms of money, he is entitled to get Rs.25,000/- as compensation.

3. Notice were served to Opposite Parties and Opposite Party filed version along all the allegation of the Complainant and file IA 201/13. Challenging the maintainability of the complaint before the Forum stating that the above complaint is filed. Another point to be looked into is when the aspect of maintainability is to be considered? As per section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act it is clear that the maintainability has to be considered before admitting the complaint/appeal and issuing notice to the opposite party. The section is very clear to hold that this is not the stage to consider the maintainability aspect of a complaint. The Hon'ble High Court has also upheld the said point vide its Judgment in Fon-Ess India Pvt Ltd., V/S Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission 2006 (3) KL500. The copy of the said decision is produced herewith. So if the Opposite Party has any grievances  with regard to the maintainability of the complaint their remedy is to approach the appeal Forum and not to file a frivolous petition here. Since the complaint is already admitted by this Hon'ble Forum the Complainant is entitled to get all reasonable opportunities as to the correctness of the complaint as it is enlisted in the subsequent provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.

4. Copy was given to the Complainant and complaint filed, Commissioner stating that the facts discussed in above case and of this Complainant is totally different and that is the case regarding industrial/commercial purpose, but in the case this domestic connection and the consumer is within the definition of the Consumer Protection Act and prayed for the dismissal of the IA.

5. Heard both parties in detail and perused all the documents produced before the forum and formed the following issue.

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?

6. Point No.1:- The bill produced by the Complainant shows that the date of notice is 16.01.2013 due date of payment was 23.01.2013 and the disconnection date was 07.02.2013 and UAL of 5 KW for 3 months 65x5x90x2=58,500/- and on the same day the Complainant paid the amount.

7. The Mahazar shows that the unauthorised of 5KW was detected. This was done by looping from a 15 A power plug at the premises of the consumer to another building situated at a distance of about 5 M away from the consumer premises. Several equipments like cutter, Driller, sander, Mottor, tube light etc. were unauthorisely connected to this extension. On the basis of this mahazar assessing officer prepared a provisional bill for Rs.58,500/- as per Section 126 of the Electricity Act and served to the consumer. Anyway the consumer paid the bill on the same day on perusal of the mahazar we came to the conclusion that it was an unauthorised use of electricity which fall under 126 of Electricity Act 2003.

8. As per the direction laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2013(3)KHC SN 19(SC)UP Power Corporation Ltd., and others V/S Anis Ahammed that a complaint against the assessment under section 126 of electricity Act is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. Since the direction exists, a question arises specifically on the point cannot be considered before the Forum. So the point No.1 is found accordingly.

9. Hence IA 201/13 is allowed.

In the result, Since challenging the maintainability IA is allowed, the complaint cannot proceed further. Hence the complaint is dismissed.

Dictated to the C.A transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 8^th day of August 2014.

Date of filing:05.03.2013.