KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.398/2021

ORDER DATED: 07.03.2022

(Against the Order in C.C.No.792/2006 of CDRC, Thrissur)

PRESENT:

APPELLANT:

(by Adv. Unnikrishnan V.)

VS.

RESPONDENT:

JUDGEMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN: PRESIDENT

          This appeal is filed by the complainant in C.C.No.792/2006 aggrieved by an order dated 17.04.2021 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission for short) dismissing his complaint with costs of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand).  According to the appellant, the order of the District Commission is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

          2.       This appeal has come before us for admission.  We have heard Advocate Unnikrishnan V, who appears for the appellant, at length.  We have also considered the contentions advanced before us.

          3.       The short facts of the case are the following:

          4.       The appellant is a consumer of electricity supplied by the respondents.  He is conducting a business in gold jewellery for his livelihood.  His consumer numbers are 10/303-1, 10807-A, and 10808-A.  His case is that, the electricity bills issued to him were being paid by him regularly.  He used to hand over the necessary amount for payment of his electricity bills to one of his staff members.  He used to be under the impression that his electricity bills were being regularly paid by his staff.  About two months prior to the filing of the complaint his staff left his service.  Thereafter when he tried to remit his electricity charges by approaching the respondents, he was informed that arrears were due and payable from the year 2002 onwards.  An amount of Rs.1,24,223/- was demanded from him as electricity charges, with penal interest.  According to him, the electricity charges demanded, were barred by limitation.  Therefore, he did not pay the same.  Consequently, his supply was disconnected on 11.10.2006, without serving a disconnection notice.  According to the appellant, if there had been any default on his part, the respondents ought to have taken steps to disconnect his supply.  The demand made without doing so at time of initial default, was alleged to be illegal.  On the above basis, he filed the complaint alleging unfair trade practice.

          5.       The respondents entered appearance and filed version contesting the case of the appellant.  According to them the connection given to the complainant was under the LT IV Tariff applicable to commercial undertakings.  He is conducting commercial gold works.  The omission to pay electricity charges was on his part.  Therefore there was no default on the part of the respondents.  As per an interim order passed by the District Commission dated 10.11.2006 the bill for the month of September 2006 was accepted excluding penal interest and electricity connection was restored to the appellant.  According to the respondents, he had defaulted payment of electricity charges from the first month of 2003 onwards.  Therefore they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6.       The parties went to trial on the above pleadings.  Evidence was adduced.  The complainant marked exhibits P1 and P2 documents on his side and examined himself as PW1.  On the side of the respondents exhibits R1 to R3 were marked and a witness was examined as RW1.  After close of evidence the matter was heard.  The District Commission framed the issues for consideration and considered the contentions of the parties on the merits.

          7.       The District Commission found that there was nothing on record to show that the electricity charges due had been paid by the appellant through his staff.  No receipt evidencing any such payment was produced.  Therefore it was found that the demand made by the respondents was justified.  Since the default was committed by the complainant/appellant his complaint has been dismissed with costs.

          8.       According to Advocate Unnikrishnan who appears for the appellant, the omission on the part of the respondents in not issuing a disconnection notice to the appellant when there was default in payment of the electricity charges amounts to unfair trade practice. Had such a notice been issued, the appellant would have been alerted to the fact that payments had not been made by his staff and he would have remedied the situation appropriately.  For the above reason it is contented that the District Commission ought to have allowed his complaint.

          9.       Having heard the counsel at length, we are not satisfied that there is any substance in the contentions put forward.  It is the duty of the consumer to pay the electricity charges promptly and regularly as and when bills are issued to him.  It is admitted that bills were being regularly issued to the appellant.  His case is that he had entrusted the necessary amount with his staff, instructing that payment should be made.  His further case is that he was under the belief that his staff had made the payment.  His omission to check and verify whether his staff had actually paid the electricity charges as instructed by him cannot be accepted as the conduct of a reasonable man.  Had he taken care to maintain an effective supervisory control over his employee he could have ensured that his electricity charges were paid regularly and without default.  Therefore, the liability for the default in payment of electricity charges rests entirely on his shoulders.  Thus, this is a case in which after having committing default in payment of electricity charges, the defaulter is trying to find fault with the respondents for not having issued a disconnection notice to him.  We are not satisfied that, the omission to issue a disconnection notice amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the respondents.

          10.     The District Commission has formulated the issues in this case correctly and has considered the rival contentions of the parties in the proper perspective, in the light of the evidence available in the case.  The conclusions drawn and the findings arrived at by the District Commission are correct and supported by the materials on record.  Therefore, the findings of the District Commission are all confirmed. 

          11.     For the above reasons, we find no grounds to admit this appeal or to issue notice to the respondents.  The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.  No costs.

SL