BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 478 /2003 Filed on 04.12.2003

Dated : 31.08.2009

Complainant:

B. Vijaya Kumar, NMC No. XIII/359, Arasumood, Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. K. Satheesh Kumar)

Opposite parties:

1. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Neyyattinkara.

    

2. The Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

3. The Chief Secretary to Government of Kerala, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram.

   (By adv. G. Gopidas)

4. Safiya, D/o Mohammed Abdul Khader, Safiya Manzil, Arasumoodu, Near I.O.C Petrol Bunk, Neyyattinkara.

(By adv. K.L. Narasimhan)

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 22.02.2006, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 14.07.2009, the Forum on 31.08.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

Complainant is the beneficiary and user of electrical energy vide consumer No. 4056. Opposite parties 1 to 3 are the various officers of K.S.E.B and 4^th opposite party is the real consumer and owner of the building. The complainant had remitted the electricity charges for one year i.e; for the period from 08/98 to 09/98. The complainant submitted that despite the periodical and timely remittance of the invoices/electrical charges to the Board, the 1^st opposite party has disconnected the connection on 25.10.1998 for no valid reason nor with proper notice to the complainant. The 1^st opposite party has taken the action at the instance of the 4^th opposite party to her illegal design trying to evict the complainant from the premises. Against this connection the 1^st opposite party issued notices to 4^th opposite party for arrears of bill. 1^st opposite party issued bill to the 4^th opposite party for Rs. 43,121/- for the period from 09/98 to 11/2002. But the 4^th opposite party did not care to remit the arrears. The complainant requested the 1^st opposite party on several times to restrain the connection, but in vain. On 21.10.2003 the complainant issued a lawyer's notice to the opposite parties. Though the opposite parties have received the notice, they failed to answer nor do they care to restore the electric connection. Hence this complaint.

Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed their version contending the entire facts of the case. They stated that they have no knowledge that the complainant is the beneficiary of the consumer No. 4056. As per the office records the registered consumer is M. Abdul Khader. The complainant has not remitted the electricity charges in advance for the period from 08/98 to 07/99. The opposite parties admitted that they have issued disconnection notice for Rs. 3,099/- on 26.09.1998 for the excess consumption charge over permitted quota during the period from 12/97 to 08/98. Since the complainant failed to remit the amount in time the supply was disconnected. The opposite parties have the right to do so. The opposite party further submitted that on 09.12.2002 the consumer of Consumer No. 4056 was served with another notice amounting to Rs. 43,121/- inclusive of surcharge for the period from 09/98 to 11/02. But the complainant did not clear the dues. Instead of that Smt. Safia(daughter of M. Abdul Khader) the registered owner of consumer No. 4056 has represented through a petition in the Revenue Adalath 2002, requesting relief of surcharge. The opposite party has given sanction to settle the issue by giving relaxation in the surcharge. But the arrear amount remained unremitted. Again on 01.11.2003 the 4^th opposite party gave a petition to consider the arrear dues in the Adalath 2003. The opposite parties gave relaxation with a direction that if the settlement was accepted and remitted the amount before 03.12.2003. But the consumer No. 4056 still remain as a defaulter in paying the arrear dues. The opposite parties are ready to restore supply if the pending dues were cleared. The opposite party states that there is no deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties 1 and 2. The opposite parties have acted only in accordance with rules and regulations.

In this case the daughter of the real consumer is impleaded as 4^th opposite party. 4^th opposite party filed version stating that there was default in the electricity in respect of the premises used by the complainant. Unauthorizedly, he converted the residential use into commercial/non commercial which warranted the levy of electric energy charges at higher rate. Since the complainant did not pay the electric charges due, the supply was cut off. The allegation that the 1^st opposite party has disconnected the service on 25.10.1998 for no valid reasons nor with proper notice to the complainant is false and denied. The compensation is sought on account of the disconnection of electric supply on 25.10.1998. The complaint is filed on 04.12.2003. It is barred by limitation. Hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

In this case complainant has filed proof affidavit and produced 5 documents for evidence. The 4^th opposite party filed affidavit and produced 2 documents. The opposite parties 1 to 3 have not filed any affidavit and documents.

Points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?

3. Reliefs and costs.

Points (i) to (iii):- In this case the complainant alleges that the 1^st opposite party has disconnected the electric supply of his house on 25.10.1998 for no valid reasons and without proper notice to the complainant. The complainant stated that he has remitted the electricity charge for the period from 08/98 to 07/99. To prove his contention he has produced the receipt as Ext. P1. As per Ext. P1 an amount of Rs. 230/- has been paid on 06/08. They argued that since the complainant paid the electricity charge for that period the opposite party has no right to disconnect the supply. For that the complainant has filed this petition for compensation against the unauthorized and illegal disconnection made by the opposite party on 25.10.1998. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties argued that they do not know the complainant. The registered owner of the Consumer No. 4056 is in the name of Abdul Khader. The opposite parties 1 & 2 also stated that they have issued an additional demand cum disconnection notice for Rs. 3,099/- with last date for payment on 26.09.1998 for the excess consumption of electricity during the period from 12/97 to 08/98. Since the complainant failed to remit the amount in time, the power supply to the premises was disconnected. In this case the real owner of the premises is one Safiya Beevi, D/o Abdul Khader and the complainant is the tenant. Hence the real consumer Safiya Beevi was impleaded as 4^th opposite party. The 4^th opposite party stated that the disconnection done by the opposite parties 1 & 2 are legal and as per their rules and regulations. Before disconnection the opposite parties have given notice to the 4^th opposite party and also the 4^th opposite party alleges that the complainant used the electricity for commercial purposes. One of the main contentions of the 4^th opposite party is that the complaint is barred by limitation. The disconnection of the electric supply was on 25.10.1998. The complainant filed this complaint before this Forum only on 04.12.2003, i.e, after a lapse of 4 years. Before filing this complaint, the complainant had sent lawyer's notice to the opposite parties on 21.10.2003 and thereafter filed this complaint. The prayer of the complainant is only to get compensation for the illegal disconnection. In this case the complainant has produced 5 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P5. Ext. P1 is the copy of receipt of payment of Rs. 230/- as the electric charge for the period from 08/98 to 07/99. Ext. P2 is the copy of order in O.S. No. 684/98 of II Munsiff Court. Ext. P3 is the copy of lawyer's notice dated 21.10.2003. Ext. P4 series are the postal receipts and acknowledgement cards of the lawyer's notice. Ext. P5 is the copy of order dated 17.01.2005 passed by the District Collector in D. Dis 36438/04/G6.

In this case the real consumer of Con. No. 4056 has no case against the disconnection on 25.10.1998. The complainant stated that the 4^th opposite party is wilfully supporting the other opposite parties because there was an eviction case between the complainant and the 4^th opposite party. For that reason the 4^th opposite party wilfully committed default in payment of electric bill. Here that matter is irrelevant. In this case the complainant and 4^th opposite party have no consumer dispute as the complainant is not the consumer of the 4^th opposite party. The relationship between them is that of landlord and tenant .

From the documents and evidences on record we find that there is no deficient service from the side of opposite parties 1 to 3. They disconnected the electric supply as per rules and regulations. Hence the complaint is dismissed.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 31^st day of August 2009.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 478/2003

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Photocopy of Bill No. 11982 of electrical charges from

08/98 to 07/99.

P2 - Photocopy of judgement in O.S 684/98 of the Hon'ble

Second Additional Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara.

P3 - Photocopy of lawyers notice.

P4 - Acknowledgement card and receipts

P4(a) - Acknowledgement card addressed to the Chief Secretary,

Kerala.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT