12th  day of December 2011

                                          OP.588/03 filed on 6/8/03

Complainant  :        P.A.Abdul Razak, Proprietor, Relax ice cream parlour,

                             Moonnupeedika, Kaipamangalam, Thrissur.

                             (ByAdv.A.D.Benny,   Thrissur)                           

Respondents    :    1. The Asst. Engineer, KSEB,  Perinjanam.P.O.

                             2. K.S.E.B., rep. by Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram,                                                                 

                                                O R D E R

By Sri.M.S.Sasidharan, Member

            The complainant’s case is that  the complainant is a super stockist and wholesale distributor of ‘Uncle John’ ice cream and is running the business under the name ‘Relax Ice Cream’.  He runs the business for his livelihood by means of self employment.  A three phase electric connection was availed by the complainant.  But the electricity supply was  being provided only through  one line  for the last 3 ½ months from January 2003.  The complainant  registered 5 complaints in the complaint book kept at the respondents office.  But the defect has not been rectified.  On 10/4/2003 the electricity supply  of the one line also stopped at 8pm.  This  failure was reported to the respondent directly and also by telephone message.  The defect was rectified and supply was restored in one line only at 9am on 14/4/2003.  Eventhough the defect on one line was rectified they have never cured the defect of other two lines.  When the supply of energy was interrupted in one line the complainant lost the stock of ice cream valuing Rs.24,000/-.  Due to the defect  in the one line supply at 8pm on 10/4/2003 to 14/4/2003  many of the  customers gave up the business transaction with the complainant.  So a lawyer notice was sent to the 1^st respondent to remove the defect in the existing two lines of three phase.  The lawyer notice has accepted and replied with a false and contradictory version.  Hence the complaint filed.

          2. The respondents filed a counter statement to the following effect.  The complainant is a commercial consumer.  He does not run the business for livelihood but it is a profit making one by employing  many  workers.  So the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act and the complaint is not maintainable.

          3. A three phase connection was given as  requested by the complainant.  It is not true that electricity was supplied only through one  line for a period of three months from January 2003.  The complaint registered in the complaint book were rectified.  It is seen that complaints were registered on 8/4/03, 20/4/03 and 13/4/03.  All these complaints were attended and necessary directions were given to the complainant and the staff.  Electricity supply was restored on the basis of the complaint booked at  10.30am on 10/4/03.  It is not true that the complaint registered  at 10/4/03 was rectified and restored the electricity at 13/4/03.  The lawyer notice received on 16/4/03 was replied on 30/4/03.  The complainant has consumed 3265 units of electricity after replacing the defective meter on 12/10/02.  All his complaints were attended in time.  So no deficiency in service was committed by the respondents.  Hence dismiss the complaint.

          4. Points for consideration are :

1) Is the complaint maintainable ?

2) Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs sought for?

          5. Evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P7, Exhibit R1 to R3 and the oral testimonies of PW1 and RW1.

          6. The complainant has stated that he is a super stockist and wholesale distributor of ‘Uncle John Ice Cream and he is running the business under the name ‘Relax Ice Cream’.  He has also stated that he runs the business for livelihood by means of self employment.  But the respondents have stated that the complainant firm is a profit making one by employing large number of workers.  The electricity connection is a commercial connection.  So the respondents have stated that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act and questioned the maintainability of the complaint.  The complainant has stated that he is managing the firm  for his livelihood.  The complainant is examined as PW1.  While cross examining the PW1 no question was asked to reveal that he employed workers, he is not depending upon the complainant firm for his livelihood and he makes profit.  Since the complainant has pleaded livelihood and there is no evidence to prove that the complainant makes profit the complainant is considered as a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.  And the complaint found maintainable.

          7. The complainant has stated that electricity supply to the complainant firm was being provided only through one line for the last 3 ½ months from January 2003.  And the complainant has made 5 complaints about it by entering in the complaint book.  The defects were not rectified and electricity supply was not restored in all the three lines.  On 10/4/2003 the electricity supply of the one line also stopped  at 8 pm.  Eventhough the failure was immediately reported and also telephoned to the 1^st respondent the defect was rectified and supply was restored in one line at 9 am on 14/4/2003.  As a result of non supply of electricity the complainant lost the stock of ice cream valuing Rs.24,000/-.  But the respondent have stated that complaint registered at 10.30 pm on 10/4/03 was rectified on the following day.  It was not  believable that the ice cream parlour  was closed for three days.  The respondents office is not very far from the complainant’s shop.  The complainant has not filed any complaint to the higher officers for his great loss.

          8. Electricity supply to the third line  attached to the complainant firm failed on 10/4/2003 and Exhibit P7 reveals that he had informed the matter to the respondents.  But he has disposed that

And also regarding the alleged loss of the stock of ice cream no evidence is produced in this regard.  If there was a huge stock of ice cream and power supply was failed the complainant should have contacted the respondent office which was not far away to get the power supply restored without delay.  So it is not believable that here was no power supply for three days and also there was stock of ice cream  valuing to Rs.24,000/-.  So the complaint lacks merits and without proof.

          9. In the result the complaint stands dismissed.

          Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 12^th   day of December 2011.

                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                   M.S.Sasidharan, Member

                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                   Padmini Sudheesh, President    

                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                   Rajani.P.S., Member               

                             Appendix

Complainant’s Exhibits

Ext. P1 Copy of lawyer notice

Ext. P2 Postal receipt

Ext. P3 Postal acknowledgement

Ext. P4 Reply notice

Ext. P5 Copy of lr. dtd. 7/4/03

Ext. P6 Copy of request dt. 15/3/03.

Ext. P7 Copy of lr. dt. 11/10/03

Complainant’s witness

PW1 – P.A.Abdul Razak

Respondent’s Exhibits

Ext. R1 Copy of proceedings

Ext. R2 Copy of request

Ext. R3

Respondents witness

RW1 - K.C.Adeeshkumar                                                       

                                                                         Id/-

                                                                                    Member