DOF.17.9.2009 DOO.3/ 7 /.2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Preethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 3rd day of July 2010 CC.250/2009 P.V.Mohanan, Mahima, Near Olachery Kavu, Talap, Kannur 1. Complainant Asst. Executive Engineer, KSEB Electrical Sub Division, P.O.Eachoor. Opposite party (Rep. by Adv.T.Sarala) O R D E R Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member This is a complaint filed under section12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite party to refund Rs.57, 766/- paid by the complainant for connection in building No.4/149 on 28.8.98. The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a SSI unit by name Anjenaya Industries situated in Chelora Panchayt in a public auction from KFC, Kannur on 27.3.98 and hence on 4.5.98, the complainant request the opposite party to reinstall the electrical connection to the building bearing No.4/149. The Asst. Executive Engineer informed the complainant through his letter No.DB.15/98-99/51/25.5.98 that the Electric conencti9n in the above building number having consumer No.9250 was dismantled due to nonpayment of current charges by the previous owner and Revenue recovery action has been already initiated to recover the outstanding amount of Rs.56,919/- and as per clause 15(1) of conditions of supply of Electric energy, new service connection can be effected only after realizing the outstanding dues. So as per instruction of Asst. Executive Engineer he had remitted Rs.62, 299/- to KSEB Eachoor against consumer No.9250 on 28.8.98 as per receipt No.810 and he took over all outstanding obligations by executing M.G. Transfer agreement. The Asst. Executive Engineer mentioned in his letter dt.13.3.01that the outstanding current charges remitted by the complainant shall be refunded without interest as son as the amount is recovered from the previous owner through RR proceedings the opposite party returned Rs.4533/- being the excess interest remitted by wrong calculation. The opposite party informed the complainant as reply to his letter dt.24.11.05 and 23.8.08, that the RR action is not yet completed. But no reply was issued to the complaint to his letter dt.25.2.09. But later on 7.8.09 the opposite party replied to his letter dt.10.6.09 that the RR action is still going on. The complainant had paid Rs.57, 766/- believing the words f the opposite party that they have already initiated RR action against the previous owner. But even after lapse of 11 years the opposite party could not recover the amount by RR action from the previous owner. Hence this complaint. Upon receiving the notice from the Forum the opposite party appeared and filed their version. The opposite party contended that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties since the Secretary, Kerala State Electricity board is not impleaded as a party. According to the opposite party the complainant requested him to reinstate the Electric connection to the building No.4/149 and hence the Opposite party informed the complaint on 20.5.88 to remit the outstanding due form the previous owner of the building. Sri. T.K. Ramachandran, which was dismantled due to the non payment of current charges. As per clause 15(e) of conditions of supply of electrical energy states that Reconnection or new connection shall not be given to any premises where there are arrears on any account due to the Board. Pending payment unless arrears including penalty if are cleared in advance. If the new owner/occupier/allot tee remits the amount due form the previous consumer the board shall provide reconnection or new connection whether service remains dis-connected/dismantled as the case may be. The amount so remitted will be adjusted against the dues form the previous consumer. If the board gets full dues from the provisions consumer through RR action or any other legal proceedings, the amount remitted by new owner/occupier to whom connection effected shall be refunded and the amount already remitted by him shall not bear any interest’. So the action of opposite party as per the rules that is in force during that time. The KSEB is not empowered directly to recover the amount due form a consumer whose connection as dismantled but have to approach the Dsit. Collector for carrying out RR. The previous owner Mr.T.K.Ramachandran is now residing at Madurai and hence the accounts officer, Billing supervision units, Kannur who is the requisitioning authority for RR send the requisition letter to District collector and upon the realization that Sri.T.K.Ramachandran was residing at Madurai. The District collector, Kannur issued RR through District collector, Madurai dt.10.12.98, to the said Ramahcandran, Plot No.140, Aravind Doctor’s quarters, Anna Nagar, Madurai and to remit it to the requisition authority and the Dsit. Collector, Maduri had intimated, the Tahsildar Madurai through letter dt.6.4.99 to recover the amount form the above said person. The Accounts officer, billing supervision units, Kannur reminded Tahsildar, Maadurai north to realize the outstanding amount form the defaulter by a letter dt.3.1.2000 later on, the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Kannur who has later became requisitioning authority reminded, the Dist. Collector, Madurai to take necessary action to recover the amount form T.K.Ramachandran by a letter dt.16.4.03. On 31.8.05 and on 15.11.06 the Executive Engineer, Electrical division, Kannur again issued a letter to the Tahsildar Madurai North as reminder with a copy to District Collector, Madurai. Despite of all these efforts, the amount remains being uncollected and it was not due to the inaction from the part of opposite party. So there is no negligence or lapse on the part of opposite party and opposite party has acted as per rules in force and hence there is no negligence on the part of opposite party. If the amount is collected from RR action against the previous owner, the opposite party should have refunded the outstanding current charges remitted by the complainant and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On the above pleadings the following issues have raised for consideration:- 1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite party? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? 3. Relief and cost. The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 DW1 and Exts. A1 to A12 and B1 to B12 Issue Nos. 1 to 3 The opposite party admits that the complainant had paid Rs.56, 919/- to the opposite party on 28.8.96 for electrical reconnection in the building No.4/149 under consumer No.9250 towards the due amount by the previous owner. The complainant had produced Ext.A1 to A12 documents i.e. request for connection dt.4.5.98, reply to this dt.25.5.98, Bill, letter dt.3.10.98, letter dt.9.6.00, letter dt.15 .2.01 order from commercial cell dt.13.3.01 letters dt.29.11.05, 29.9.06, 24.2.09, 10.6.09 and 27.8.09. These documents also prove the case of the complainant. But in order to disprove the allegations that the reason for not obtaining the amount is due to deficiency of opposite party, they also produced documents Exts.B1 to B12 i.e. letters dt.11.11.97, 9.1.95, 16.2.98, 10.12.98, memo dt.6.4.99 letters dt.3.1.00, 16.4.03, 31.8.05, 15.11.06, 27.11.06, 21.5.07 and 4.6.07. According to opposite party clause 15© of conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy states that reconnection or new connection shall not be given to any premises where there are arrears on any account due to the board pending payment, unless arrears including penalty if are cleared in advance. If the new owner remits the amount due from the previous consumer the Board shall provide reconnection or new connection whether service remains disconnected or dismantled as the case may be. The amount so remitted will be adjusted against the dues from the previous consumer. If the Board gets full dues from previous consumer through RR action or any other legal proceedings, the amount remitted by the new owner to whom connection effected shall be refunded and the amount already remitted by him shall not bear any interest”. So the Ext.B1 to B12 shows that the opposite party had taken steps against the previous owner who has been residing at Madurai, TamilNadu to recover the amount by way of revenue recovery action. But this action was not become fruitful and they re trying to recover the amount from the above said previous owner. The opposite party stated that they should have refunded the outstanding current charges remitted by the complainant, if the amount is collected from RR action against the previous owner. The Exts.B1 to B12 shows tat the opposite party had taken genuine action against the previous owner to collect the amount from him. So we are not in a position to attribute deficiency on the part of the opposite party and hence we hold the view that there is no deficiency on the part of opposite party to recover the amount form previous owner and to refund the same to the complainant. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed and order passed accordingly. In the result the complaint stands dismissed. No cost. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1. Request for connection dt.4.5.98, A2. Reply letter dt.25.5.98, A3.Receipt dt.29.8.98 A4. Copy of the letter dt.3,10,98 sent to OP A5.Copy f the letter sent to Dy.Chief Engineer A6. Copy of the letter sent by Dy. Chief Engr. Thiruvannanthapuram A7.Copy of the order issued by OP A8 & 9.Copy of the letter dt.29.11.05 and 29.9.06 issued by EE Eachoor. A10. Copy of the application submitted for Adalath A11.Copy of reminder letter A12. Copy of the letter dt.7.8.09 issued by OP Exhibits for the opposite party: B1 to B12. letters dt.11.11.97, 9.1.95, 16.2.98, 10.12.98,.6.4.99 ,.3.1.00, 16.4.03, 31.8.05, 15.11.06, 27.11.06, 21.5.07 and 4.6.07. Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant Witness examined for the opposite party DW1.Babu Prajith.K.P. /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
