By: Sri. . Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
The grievance of the complainant is as follows:-
1. The complainant is an advocate practising at District Court centre, Manjeri and he is functioning his office in the building of the opposite party. The complainant and the opposite party are contesting two cases between themselves as numbered O.S.317/2021 and RCP 30/2021 before the Munsiff’s Court, Manjeri. According to the complainant, he remit the electricity bill regularly in every two month after getting bill from the opposite party. But, the opposite party willfully not hand over electricity bill for the month of March 2022. So the complainant could not pay the bill for consumption of electricity and as a result the staffs of the Kerala State Electricity Board came and disconnected the power supply. The complainant alleged that opposite party did not inform him about the disconnection of electricity power. It is stated by the complainant that the opposite party acted with malafide intention in order to get disconnected the electric power, so as to create discomfort and mental agony to the complainant especially in a hot climate between 04/03/2022 and 10/03/2022. According to the complainant, he sustained financial loss of Rs.30,000/- as his office remained closed for one week. Due to abnormal heat climate the complainant could not spent time in his office and resulting the financial loss of another Rs.20,000/- due the withdrawal of clients who are intended to approach the complainant for legal advise. The complainant also claimed Rs.25,000/- as compensation from the opposite party as he suffered mental agony and hardship due to the act of the opposite party. In the prayer portion of the complaint, the complainant claimed Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental agony and also claimed Rs.20,000/- for the financial loss caused due to the withdrawal of clients from his office. The complainant claimed another Rs.20,000/- from the opposite party as compensation for in convenience due to the act of opposite party.
2) The complaint is admitted and issued notice to the opposite party. The opposite party received notice and appeared through counsel. But the version filed by the opposite party is not within the period specified in the statute. So the Commission proceeded without considering the pleadings envisaged in the version.
3) The complainant filed affidavit and document. The document produced by the complainant is marked as Ext. A1 document. Ext. A1 document is the copy of paytm transaction made in favour of Kerala Electricity Board Ltd for Rs.545/-.
4) Heard the complainant. Perused affidavit and document. The points arisen for the consideration of the Commission are;-
1) Whether the opposite party committed deficiency in service towards the
complainant?
2) Relief and cost.
5) Point No.1 and 2
It stated in complaint that the electricity power of his office was disconnected by the Kerala State Electricity Board due to non payment of bill. It is stated in the complaint as well as in affidavit that the payment for the consumption of power was regularly remitted by the complainant after receiving bill from the opposite party , who is owner of the building , wherein the office of the complainant is functioning. But in the month of March the opposite party did not hand over bill resulting failure to remit the bill of consumption of electricity. As a result, the authority disconnected the electricity power connection and his office function was halted to due to non availability of electricity power during the period between 04/03/2022 to 10/03/2022. It is contended by the complainant that the opposite party with malafide intention did not give the bill for payment in proper time. According to him the opposite party wanted to get disconnected the power and thereby create inconvenience and annoyance to the complainant. Even though there is no contra evidence available on record, the Commission finds that the complainant was not succeeded in proving the case before the Commission. The complainant did not produce any document to show that there was disconnection of electricity power took place in his office. The complainant even not produced any document related to previous months’ payment to support his contention made in the complaint. Ext. A1 document does not speak about the details of disconnection or the payment was made pertaining to his office, where in the alleged disconnection of electricity power took place. The complainant also failed to produce any kind of evidence to show the landlord tenant relationship between the parties. So this Commission is declined to accept the contention of the complainant and hence complaint dismissed.
Dated this 13th day of February 2023.
Mohandasan K., President
Preethi Sivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1
Ext.A1: Copy of paytm transaction made in favour of Kerala Electricity Board Ltd, for
Rs.545/-.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Mohandasan K., President
Preethi Sivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
VPH
