O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. Case of the petitioner, filed on 13..7..2009 is as follows: Petitioner is a consumer of the opposite party Electricity Board. Electric connection to the petitioners, owned, house is in the name of the petitioner. According to the petitioner for the demolition of the building on 2..4..2009 petitioner requested for disconnection. Opposite party has not heed to the demands of the petitioner. So, the petitioner prays for a direction to the opposite party to disconnect his electric connection. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. Opposite party admitted that the electric connection, with vide consumer No. 5268, stands registered in the name of the petitioner in LT 1 A Tariff. The service connection was registered on 27..7..1983. They admitted that a request has been received from the petitioner for dismantling the -2- service connection on 29..4..2009. While the opposite party made arrangements for dismantling service connection, present occupier of the building Sri. Thomas Koshy, the brother of the petitioner, filed written objection claiming ownership of the house to which electric connection is vailed. Sri. Thomas Koshy produced the copy of the judgment in case No. OS-257/2007 before the Munsiff Court, Kanjirappally, copy of the possession certificate Copy of receipt for application for change of ownership etc. Opposite party contented that there is no deficiency in service on their part in not dismantling the service connection. So, they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs. Points for determinations are: i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? ii) Relief and costs. Evidence in this case consists of deposition of the petitioner as PW1, Ext. A1 to A3 documents on the side of the petitioner. Affidavit of the opposite party has Ext. B1 to B5 documents on the side of the opposite party. Point No. 1 ` The crux of the case of the petitioner is that the electric connection, registered in the name of petitioner, is not dismantle after the written request of the petitioner. According to the opposite party when the opposite party made arrangement for dismantling the service connection. Present occupier of the building Sri. Thomas Koshy , brother of the petitioner, filed written objection -3- claiming ownership of the house and he produced certain documents. Admittedly the service connection was registered on 27..7..1993 in the name of the petitioner. Even though the motive of the petitioner is to keep his brother in dark. As per regulation 25 of the supply code 2005 disconnection to the supply is to be done by the licensee at the request of the consumer. Further more, the occupier can also apply to the licensee for supply of energy as per regulation 5 of the supply code. As per regulation 14 (4) of conditions of supply 2005 if the intending consumer is not owner of the premises to be electrify, he shall furnish a consent agreement in form No. 4 annexed from the owner of the premises. If he is unable to produce the consent agreement from the owner of the building the service connection can be effected if the applicant executes an indemnity bond in form No. 5 annexed. Dispute with regard to title and ownership of the property or house is not a consumer dispute as envisaged under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act . Here the registered consumer of the opposite party, by executing agreement to the licensee, by complying the legal formalities has now applied for dismantling the service. So, as per regulation 25 of supply code 2005. Opposite party is duty bound to disconnect the supply and dismantling the apparatus. So, in our view the act of the opposite party in not disconnecting and dismantling electric connection is a clear deficiency in service. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly. -4- Point No. 2 In view of the finding in point No. 1, petition is allowed. Opposite party is directed to disconnect and dismantle the electric connection in the name of the petitioner. Opposite party is directed to give notice to the occupant of the house with regard to the disconnection. If the occupant desires to continue the supply and if he comply the legal formalities, opposite party is of the discretion for giving supply to the occupant. The order shall be complied with within 2 months on the receipt of the order. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case no cost and compensation is ordered. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 25th day of May, 2010. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- APPENDIX Documents for the Petitioner Ext. A1: The ownership certificate Dtd: 10..7..2010 Ext. A2: Receipt Dtd: 4..1..2010 Ext. A3: Certificate issued by the Secretary Mundakkayam Grama Panchayath Dtd: 21..11..2009 Documents for the Opposite party: Ext. B1: Copy of the judgment in OS No. 257/2007 of Munsiff Court, Kanjirappally Dtd: 21…2..2009 Ext. B2: Copy of affidavit filed by the petitioner in OS No. 257/2009. Ext. B3: Copy of the possession certificate of the land issued by the special Village Officer, Erumely North Ext. B4: Copy of the receipt issued from the Mundakkayam Grama Panchayat for the application for ownership change. Ext. A5: Written objection filed by Sri. Thomas Koshy Dtd: 3..8..2009 Ext. B6: Copy of the sketch prepared by the Advocate Commission in case No. OS 257/2007. By Order, Senior Superintendent
| | HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas, Member | HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan, Member | | 
