BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE

Dated this the 27^TH October 2014

PRESENT

     SMT. ASHA SHETTY           :   HON’BLE PRESIDENT

                        SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI       :   MEMBER                                        

COMPLAINT NO.160/2013

(Admitted on  15-6-2013)

Smt. Prapulla,

Wo G.Balu,

Aged about 45 years,

Rat Kudumblady House,

Kedila Village,

Bantwal Tq., D.K.                                                 …….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for Complainant: Sri Sanjay D)

          VERSUS

Assistance Executive Engineer,

MESCOM,

Vittal Sub Division,

Vittal, Bantwal Tq, D.K.                                       ……OPPOSITE PARTY

(Advocate for Opposite Party: Sri S.M.Bhat)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SMT. ASHA SHETTY:

I.          1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service as against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

The complainant stated that, she had submitted an application to the Opposite Party for grant of electricity power to the complainant’s house  bearing door No.3-139(1) on 25.2.2012 by paying Rs.50/- along with no objection letter from Kedila Grama Panchayath. The above said application was given through the electrical contractor and thereafter contractor has completed the wiring as shown in the application.

It is stated that, when the matter stood thus, the complainant has received a letter dated 14.9.2012 from the Opposite Party informing that, the Opposite Party engineer has inspected the premises and found that earlier meter No. VL6170 was installed and theft case is pending before the Court.  Thereafter the complainant gave application dated 9.11.2012 to the Opposite Party to give completion report but there was no response from the Opposite Party. Then again one more application under RTI Act submitted to the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party inturn supplied the information stating that Door No.3-139(1)  has connection through VL-6170  and theft case is pending before the court and further information  is sought from Vigilance Department.  Thereafter the complainant received the copy of the letter dated 13.12.2012 from the Vigilance Department stating that there is no case pending against House No.3-139(1) pertaining to the complainant and that  case against VL -6170 pertaining to door No.3-139 which is not belonging to the complainant. 

It is stated that, the Opposite party denied power connection without any valid reason and thereafter the complainant issued a legal notice dated 14.3.2013 to the Opposite Party  insptie of that the opposite party not comply the demand made therein.  And  hence the complainant filed the above complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Party to give electricity connection to Door No.3-139(1) of the complainant along with compensation and cost of the proceedings.

II.        1. Version notice served to the Opposite Party by R.P.A.D. Opposite Party  appeared through their counsel filed version stated that One Sri Ananda Rao has taken electricity connection as per R.R. No.VL 6170 and in that RR number electricity theft was detected by Vigilance Squad and Crime No.104/2010 was registered  and Rs. 20,756/-  was charged as back bill and Rs.4,000/- has charged as compounding and stated that C.C.No.9/2011 pending for enquiry and complainant is the daughter of the above said Late Ananda Rao. Hence the electricity connection sought by the complainant was not given since the above bill was not paid and also stated that the separate door number is taken to the portion of the house, so as to create a separate house and denied the deficiency and sought for dismissal of the complaint.

III.       1.  In support of the complaint, Smt. Prapulla (CW1) – Complainant filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on her and produced Ex. C1 to C12. On behalf of Opposite Party one Sri Yashavanth, (RW-1) Assistant Executive Engineer (Elec.) filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced Ex.R1 to R7.

            In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

1. Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service?

2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

3. What order?

                        We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:

                                Point No.(i): Affirmative.

                           Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.         

REASONS

IV.       1.  POINTS NO. (i) TO (iii):

    In the instant case, the facts which are admitted is that the complainant is the owner of  house Door No. 3-139(1) and applied for grant of electricity power connection to her residence by paying Rs.50/- on 25.2.2012 as per receipt No. 0478235 along with no objection letter from Kedila Grama Panchayath.  It is also not disputed that the electrical contractor Veeksha Electricals, Bantwal completed the wiring as shown in the application as per Ex C2.

Now the points are in dispute between the parties before this FORA is that, the complainant contended that she resides in Door No.3-139(1) and sought for electricity power connection to her house by paying prescribed fee along with No objection letter issued from Kedila Grama Panchayath, inspite of that the Opposite Party without any valid reason not given electricity power connection till this date. Hence came up with this complaint.

Opposite Party on the contrary contended that, one Sri.Ananda Rao who is the father of the complainant taken electrical power connection as per VL No.7670 and electricity theft was detected in the above meter number by the Vigilance Squad and case was registered and back bill and compounding charges that is pending.  During the pendency of the case before the court the complainant’s father died, the case was closed on 4.10.2011 and the complainant is the daughter is liable to pay the back bill. Hence they denied to provide electricity power to her door number.

On perusal of oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, it clearly shows that, the Ex.C1 is the Original payment receipt for electricity connection paid by the complainant and Ex.C2 is the application filed by the complainant for electricity connection to her new residence pertaining to Door No.3-139(1) and Ex.C3 and C4 are the letter written by the complainant and Ex. C5 is the RTI application wherein sought the information of the application filed  for  electricity connection  by the complainant and another Document Ex.C6 is the reply of the Opposite Party  and Ex.C7 is the addressed by the Opposite Party  to the Vigilance Squad wherein it has clearly mentioned that the Door No.3-139 pertaining to the complainant is not involved in any electrical theft case and Ex. C8 reply given by the vigilance squad to the Opposite Party and further the Ex.C10 is the no objection letter  issued by the Kedila Grama Panchayath  with regard to the Door No.3-139(1)  clearly reveals that there is no such electrical theft involved in the above said door number.  We are very surprised to note that the documentary evidence produced by the complainant clearly reveals that there is no electricity power theft involved in Door No.3-139(1) , when that being so, the Opposite Party has got no right to withheld the electricity connection to the above said door number.  The defence taken by the Opposite party i.e. the complainant’s father one Sri. Ananda Rao who was residing in another door number, in the said door number theft of electricity has taken place and the case was registered and the bill was pending, and further took a contention that Mr.Ananda Rao expired during the pendency of the case and the complainant is the daughter of the above said Ananda Rao, therefore, the electricity connection is denied is not convincing and credible.  The steps taken by the opposite Party is nothing but arbitrary and amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Just because the bill pertaining to the complainant’s father is pending electrical power connection sought for the door number pertaining to the complainant cannot be withheld.  If at all bill is pending by the Father of the complainant then the option left open to the Opposite party to proceed with some other legal remedy available to them and not curtile the power connection sought by the complainant and forced to live in dark all these days shows the dishonest intention of the concerned office incharge who is responsible to issue power connection to the complainant.

By considering the above aspect, we hold that, the electricity connection is one of the basic necessity of all the consumers and therefore the denial of the power connection in this case nothing but arbitrary and amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.

By considering the above aspect, we hereby directed the Opposite Party to provide immediate electrical power connection to the Door No. No.3-139(1) without further delay in case the Opposite Party failed to provide immediate power connection in such an event the Opposite party directed to pay Rs.100/- per day as damages from the date of failure till the date of providing power connection and also pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as damages for the inconvenience and harassment caused to the complainant by keeping her in dark for all these days and further pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of the litigation expenses. Compliance/payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

The Opposite Party is at liberty to recover the damages amount from the office incharge who had taken coercive decision by curtailing the power connection till this date.

            In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER

The complaint is allowed.  Opposite Party i.e. MESCOM Represented by its Assistant Elective Engineer  is hereby directed to provide immediate power connection to the Door No.3-139(1) without further delay, in case the Opposite Party failed to provide immediate power connection in such an event the Opposite party directed to pay Rs.100/- per day as damages from the date of failure till the date of providing power connection apart from paying Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as damages to the complainant and further pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of the litigation expenses. Compliance/payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties and file shall be consigned to record room.

(Page No.1 to 9 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 27^th  day of October 2014)

                        PRESIDENT                                        MEMBER

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1 – Smt. Prapulla– Complainant.

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex C1: 25.2.2012: Copy of the Receipt issued by the O.P.

Ex C2: 25.2.2012: Copy of the application given by the complainant.

Ex C3: 14.9.2012: Copy of the letter by the O.P. to the complainant.

Ex C4: 9.11.2012: Copy of the letter by the complainant to O.P.

Ex C5: 15.11.2012: Copy of the RTI Application.

Ex C6: 7.12.2012: Reply issued by the O.P.

Ex C7: 7.12.2012: Copy of the letter by the O.P. to vigilance Squad.

Ex C8: 13.12.2012: Reply issued by Vigilance Squad.

Ex C9: 1.4.2012: Copy of the tax paid receipt.

Ex C10: 12.1/2012: No objection letter given by Kedila Grama Panchayath.

Ex C11: 14/3/2013: O/c of regd. Lawyer’s notice.

Ex C12: 15/3/2013: Postal Acknowledgment.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

RW-1: Sri. Yashavanth, Assistant Executive Engineer (Elec.)_ of Opposite Party.

Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party:   

Ex R1: 13.12.2012: Vigilance Squad Report.

Ex R2: Tax paid receipt from RR docate.

Ex R3: 27.5.2010: Complaint copy for theft and mahzar copy.

Ex. R4: 24.12.2012: Kedila Grama Panchayath letter.

Ex R5: 6.7.2013 and 12.7.2013: Spot inspection reports with photo

Ex R6: 21.2.2013: Opinion of Legal Advisor.

Ex R7: 13.5.2013: Office order with notice.

Dated:27-10-2014                                         PRESIDENT