KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 713/2016

JUDGMENT DATED: 14.06.2019

(Against the Order in C.C. 53/2015 of CDRF, Kottayam)

PRESENT : 

SRI. T.S.P. MOOSATH                                                         : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                       : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

Naisy. S, Anugraha Paying Guest Home, Muttambalom P.O, Kottayam, Pin-686 004.

(By Adv. E.J. Binu)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. The Secretary, K.S.E.B Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Anoop, Assistant Engineer, K.S.E.B Electrical Section, Kottayam East-02.

(By Adv. B. Sakthidharan Nair)

JUDGMENT

SRI. T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER

The complainant in C.C. No. 53/2015 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam, in short the District Forum, has filed the appeal against the Order passed by the District Forum by which the complaint was dismissed. 

2.  The complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite parties, the Secretary, KSEB, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram and Anoop, Assistant Engineer, KSEB Electrical Section, Kottayam seeking compensation for the financial loss and mental agony alleged to have caused to her due to the ill motivated act of the 2^nd opposite party.  The dispute is regarding the bills issued by the opposite parties, which according to the complainant were issued without proper assessment and she was compelled to remit the penalty bill due to the ill motivated, wilful act of the 2^nd opposite party to harass her.  It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party disconnected the electric connection provided to her without any notice and issued a bill for Rs. 30,214/-.  It has badly affected the reputation of the complainant’s paying guest home.  So she was compelled to pay the penalty bill.  Alleging deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 & 2 the complainant has filed the complaint.

3.  Opposite parties filed I.A. No. 194/2016 challenging the maintainability of the complaint.  It is stated by the opposite parties that the complainant is conducting two private hostels, by engaging many employees, for making profit, which is a commercial purpose.  So the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Furthermore, on inspection of the consumer Nos. 370 and 1296 it was found that there was misuse and unauthorized use of the connected load.  The supply is used for commercial purpose for running the private hostels which is against the terms and conditions of Supply Code 2005.  So the opposite parties issued the penal bill under Sections 126 and 135(e) of the Indian Electricity Act.  A complaint against the assessment made by the assessing officer under Sec. 126 or against the offence committed under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum.  So the complaint is not maintainable and is to be dismissed.  The complainant filed objection to the I.A contending that she has filed the complaint against the series of wilful acts of negligence, misuse of power and position of the 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite parties since there was deficiency in service on their part.  So the contention of the opposite parties that the complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum is not sustainable.  So the petition filed by the opposite parties is to be dismissed.

4.  The district forum found that the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum since the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.  The District Forum allowed the I.A filed by the opposite parties and the complaint was dismissed as not maintainable before the Forum. 

5.  Aggrieved by the Order passed by the District Forum the complainant has filed the present appeal. 

6.  Heard both sides.  Perused the records. 

7.  In the complaint it is stated by the complainant that she is conducting paying guest home under the name and style ‘Anugraha Paying Guest Home’ in two rented buildings in the Kottayam municipal area bearing KSEB Consumer Nos. 370 and 1296.  In the building having KSEB Consumer No. 370 male students are accommodated and in the building having KSEB Consumer No. 1296 female students are accommodated in which the appellant is also staying as a caretaker.  So admittedly the complainant obtained the electric connection to the buildings where she is conducting paying guest home, where male and female students are accommodated.  So it can be seen that the complainant availed the service of the opposite parties for conducting two paying guest homes, for profit making, which is a commercial purpose.  Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act excludes a person who avails any service for consideration for any commercial purpose from the definition of ‘consumer’.  In the complaint it is not stated by the complainant that she is conducting the paying guest home, exclusively for the purpose of earning her livelihood, by means of self employment.  Considering all these aspects the District Forum found that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act and hence the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum.  So the District Forum allowed the I.A filed by the opposite parties and the complaint was dismissed.  We consider that there is no reason/ground to interfere with the finding and Order passed by the District Forum.  So the appeal is to be dismissed.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.    

Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

T.S.P MOOSATH     :  JUDICIAL MEMBER

BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

jb