KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No.608/2018
JUDGEMENT DATED: 27.11.2023
(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.122/2012 DCDRC, Thrissur)
PRESENT:
|
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.
|
:
|
JUDICIAL MEMBER
|
|
SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN
|
:
|
MEMBER
|
APPELLANTS:
|
1.
|
The Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Pavaratti, KSEB, P.O. Pavaratti,
Thrissur - 680507
|
|
2.
|
The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, KSEB,
P.O. Pavaratti, Thrissur- 680 507
|
(by Adv. B. Sakthidharan Nair)
|
3.
|
Kerala State Electricity Board, represented by Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram- 695004.
|
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
|
|
Sukumaran Ambadi, Proprietor, Ambadi Building, K.K. Road, Pavaratti P.O, Thrissur - 680507
|
(by Adv. R.S. Kalkura)
JUDGEMENT
SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER
This is an appeal filed under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the opposite parties in C.C.No.122/2012 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (the District Commission for short). As per the order dated 29.06.2018, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand) as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) as costs of the complaint. They were further directed to adjust this amount to the future bills of the complainant from July 2018 to December 2018.
2. The brief details of the complaint are as follows:-
The complaint pertains to the inordinate delay in the installation of a transformer in the premises of the complainant. The complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and the electric connection was given to his building constructed for his livelihood by means of self-employment. An amount of
Rs.2,40,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Thousand) was paid on 29.01.2011 for installing the transformer for giving electricity to the building. There was inordinate delay in the installation of the transformer which was charged only on 06.02.2012. Because of the delay in the installation of the transformer the complainant had to face lot of difficulties and suffered monetary loss. Hence, he filed the complaint claiming compensation for deficiency in service.
3. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version. Their contention was that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The building owned by the complainant is a three storeyed building having several rooms and he gets huge amount as rental income. As it is used for commercial purpose he cannot file a complaint before the Consumer forum. Considering that it was a big building having many connections it was proposed to install a 100 KVA transformer in the premises. It was agreed by the complainant and accordingly necessary sanction was obtained from the higher authorities. However, one of the tenants of the complainant objected to the installation of the transformer in front of his shop. He filed a civil suit also before the Munsiff Court, Chavakkadu. The delay was only because of the delay in finalising the location for installation of
Back
