Complaint filed on:27-10-2022
Disposed on: 16-06-2023
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU
DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF JUNE 2023
PRESENT
SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com., LLM., PRESIDENT
SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc. (Agri), LL.B., MBA., MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., LL.B.(Spl)., LADY MEMBER
Consumer Complaint No. 164/2022
1. Sri. Pruthvi H.N.
Ph:9886065862,
2. Smt. H.M.Asha Kumari
Ph:7019810275,
3. Sri. H.S.Niranjan Aradhya
Ph:9448568339,
Complainant Nos. 1 to 3 R/at
No.27, IV Cross,“ASHA NIRANJAN”, IV Cross,
Municipal Layout, Siddaganga Extension,
Tumkur-572 102.
(In Person)
V/s
1. Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Limited,
MC COLONY, 2nd Cross, Someshwar Nagar,
Tumkur – 572 102.
Ph:9449844326,
2. Smt. Manjula K.R., Overseer, MC Colony, 2nd Cross,
Someshwar Nagar, Tumkur-572 102.
Ph:9449843510
3. Sri. Devraj, Meter Reader, MC Colony, 2nd Cross,
Someshwar Nagar, Tumkur-572 102.
Ph:9449844304
4. Sri. Gajendra Kauligaud, MC Colony, 2nd Cross,
Someshwar Nagar, Tumkur-572 102.
Ph:94480815822.
(OP No.1 – Absent)
(OP Nos.2 to 4 – M.S.Sreedhara Murthy, Adv.,)
:O R D E R:
SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH – LADY MEMBER
This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the Ops with a prayer to direct the Ops to refund financial/commercial loss due to 3 days loss of the work, refund for commercial loss of 3 days leave of both complainant No.1 and complainant No.3 and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and also prays to direct the BESCOM to take necessary action to check if this was a planned way of extorting money from uneducated consumers and a form of forcing consumers to pay bribe and to take necessary action against those who performed action that they are not authorized to and those who allowed them to perform such actions.
2. The Opposite Party No.1 is Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited, Tumkur (Hereinafter called as OP No.1), Opposite Party No.2 is Smt.Manjula K.R. Overseer (Hereinafter called as OP No.2), Sri.Devraj, Meter Reader (Hereinafter called as OP No.3) and Sri.Gajendra Kauligaud, Lineman (Hereinafter called as OP No.4).
3. The case of the complainant is that the complainants are consumer of Ops under AEH Number A6062 for more than 30 years and now under consumer under the number C2SA24426. It is further submitted that the complainant was getting a wooden carpentry work done with the help of professional carpenters by paying them on per day basis, starting work on 11.10.2022 and when OP Nos. 3 and 4 get into the house to give the monthly electricity bill after reading the meter, they have a verbal fight with the carpenters and on hearing this, complainant Number No.2 comes down and asks what is wrong to which OP Nos. 3 & 4 start shouting that doing such carpentry work is illegal and we will fine you an amount of up-to Rs.50,000-00 INR. It is further submitted that when complainant No.1 asks OP Nos. 3 and 4 which rules says this is illegal, for that, OP Nos.3 & 4 shouted and threatened and also not shown any ID card when asked and also not wear any uniform. After some time OP No.2 comes to the location and states that carpentry work can only be performed after obtaining temporary permission from BESCOM and when complainant No.1 asks about the rules in this regard, the OP No.2 did not give any information and asks OP No.4 to collect the cutting machine and thereafter complainants asks to show identity, but the OPs did not show any identity and took away the machine. Thereafter the complainant called the BESCOM Helpline and confirmed that there is no need to take temporary permission for an existing RR and the renovation work can be carried out by using power supply from load side. It is further submitted that after the incident the complainant sent video that was taken at the time confiscated the machines from the OP Nos. 2 to 4 and for that, AEE Mr.Venkatesh accepted the mistake and instructed the concerned to return the tool and hence, the complainant collected the tool on October 13. The OPs have caused financial loss to the complainant by illegally recovering the tool and the attitude of the OPs is nothing but deficiency in service. Hence, the complaint.
4. The OP No.1 did not appear before this Commission and remained absent in spite of receipt of notice issued by this Commission, but the OP Nos.2 to 4 appeared and filed the version admitting that the complainant is a consumer under the OPs and also admitted that the OP Nos. 3 & 4 have visited the complainant house on 11.10.2022 and checked the meter readings and issued monthly electricity bill. The OP Nos. 2 to 4 further contended that the complainant obtained the power connection from BESCOM Authority for domestic purpose only and the sanction load is 2 KV only and that on 11.10.2022, these OPs are going to issue monthly electricity bill, at that time checked the meter, it crossed sanctioned load of 2KV, hence the OPs asked the complainant whether he has taken any permission from BESCOM for using of excess load, but complainant did not produce any kind of document for excess load and the complainant used excess load un-authorisidly without permission from BESCOM. The OPs denied other allegations made in the complaint. On these among other grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. The complainant No.1 has filed his affidavit evidence and marked the documents produced by him at Ex.C1 to C5. OP No.3 Sri. Devaraju, Meter Reader, Bescom has filed his affidavit evidence on behalf of OPs 2 & 4. The Counsel for OP Nos. 2 to 4 has marked the documents at Ex.R1 to R3.
6. We have heard the arguments of complainant in person and counsel for OP Nos. 2 to 4.
- Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs?
- Is complainant entitled to the relief sought for?
- Our findings aforesaid points are as under:
Point No.1: Partly affirmative
Point No.2: As per the final order
:REASONS:
Point Nos.1 and 2:
8. The complainant No.1 submitted that complainant No.1 is the Mother and complainant No.3 is the Father of complainant No.1 and they are residing at same address. The OP Nos. 2 to 4 have not disputed the same. Further, the complainant No.1 has argued that, complainants were consumers of electricity under the AEH number A6062 for more than 30 years and they have also been a consumer under the number C2SA24426 for more than 14 years. The Ex.R1/copy of bill dated:11.10.2022 produced by OPs establishes that complainant No.3 having RR number i.e. C2SA24426. Further, the complainant No.1 has argued that, the complainants have getting a wooden carpentry work done with the help of professional carpenters and on October 11, 2022, when OP No.3 and OP No.4 get into the house of complainants for meter reading to issue the monthly electricity bill, they have a verbal fight with the carpenters and complainants. The complainant No.1 further argued that the OP No.4 collected the cutting machine. Further, complainant No.1 asks for rules regarding allowable and non-allowable KW reading, and asks how much of fine for mistake, but the OP No.2 has not responded for the same. The complainant further argued that, though he ask for ID cards from OP Nos. 2 to 4, they have not shown any ID cards, they have seized the tools of carpentry work and went away by saying that to collect the tools from the office. To prove the same incident, the complainants produced the Ex.C1/DVD of the Video recording, which reveals that, the OPs have seized carpentry tools and went away. The Ex.C1 was not denied or objected by the OPs. Further, the complainant No.1 has argued that, he has contacted with helpline of OP No.1 and confirmed the information that there is no need to take temporary for an existing RR and the renovation work can be carried out by using power supply from load side. To prove the same the complainants produced the Ex.C1/CD, which having voice call recording of complainant No.1 is proves the said argument of the complainant No.1. Further, the complainant No.1 has argued that he has contacted the AE and AEE of the OP Company and sent video recorded by the complainant No.1. Ex.C2/copy of screenshot of sent video proves same. Further, complainant No.1 argued that, AEE one Mr.Venkatesh accepted that this was mistake from the concerned and have instructed them to return the tools. Ex.C5/copy of the WhatApp message sent by one Mr.Venkatesh proves that, AEE of the OP Company said that to return the tools and he has also said that there is no necessary to take extra permission for renovation work.
9. In contrary, counsel for OP Nos. 2 to 4 has argued that complainant obtained the power connection from OP No.1 Authority for domestic purpose and sanction load is 2 K.V. only. The Ex.R1 and R2, copy of electricity bills dated:11.10.2022 and 11.11.2022 produced by the OPs proves that the complainant No.2 obtained the power connection for domestic purpose. Further, the counsel for the OP Nos. 2 to 4 has argued that the meter is crossing the reading to the sanction load i.e. excess 0.2 when the OPs were went for issue the monthly electricity bill. The Ex.R1 and R2 proves that the complainants consumed the excess load as 0.25 KW as on the bill dated:11.10.2022 and excess load as 1.00 KW as on the bill dated:11.11.2022. Further, the counsel for the OP has argued that the complainant using the excess load unauthorisidely without permission from the BESCOM and the complainant has committed an offence of theft. But, the OP Nos. 1 to 4 have not produced any document to show that, they have filed any special complaint for theft of electricity against the complainants. As per Ex.C1 voice record of complainant with help line of BESCOM and Ex.C5/copy of WhatsApp messages by AEE of BESCOM, it reveals that, there is not necessary to take permission for renovation work when there is existing RR number. Further, the counsel for OP Nos. 2 to 4 has argued that the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission when there is question of unauthorised use of electricity. Though, the Consumer Commissions has not power to entertain the complaints regarding unauthorised use of electricity, the Consumer Commissions having power to entertain the complaints regarding the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the service provider. The consumers have right to ask the identity and information about the service provider and it is the duty of the service provider to show their ID cards. In the present case, Ex.C1/DVD recording of video proves that the OPs have not shown the ID cards to the complainants when they are taking away seized carpentry tools from the premises of the complainants, which shows the negligent act of the OPs and it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. The action of not showing the ID cards at the time of seizing of goods by the service provider causes the mental agony to the consumers. Hence, the OP Nos. 2 to 4 are liable to pay compensation for their negligent act. Being an Employer of OP Nos. 2 to 4, the OP No.1 is also liable to pay compensation.
10. The complainants prayed for refund of financial loss due to the 3 days loss of work and financial loss of 3 days leave of both complainants 1 & 3. But the complainants have not produced any documents regarding financial loss due to 3 days loss of work and loss caused by 3 days leave of complainant Nos. 1 & 3. Hence, same was not considered. Further, complainant prayed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. But the complainants have not produced any document to show that they have entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- for compensation. Considering the mental agony caused by the OPs, the complainant is entitled for compensation. Hence, the OP Nos. 1 to 4 are liable to pay compensation of Rs.4,000-00 to the complainants. The OP Nos. 1 to 4 are compelled the complainants to approach this Commission. Hence, the OP Nos. 1 to 4 are liable to pay Rs.3,000-00 as litigation cost to the complainants. Further, the complainants prays to direct OP No.1 to take necessary action to check if this was a planned way of extorting money from uneducated consumers and a form of forcing consumers to pay bribe and to take necessary action against those who performed action that they are not authorized to and those who allowed them to perform such actions. This prays are not comes under the purview of C.P. Act Hence, same prayer of the complainants are not considered. Accordingly, we pass the following:-
:ORDER:
The complaint filed by the complainants is allowed in part.
The OP Nos. 1 to 4 are jointly and severally directed to pay compensation of Rs.4,000-00 and litigation cost of Rs.3,000-00 to the complainants within 45 days of receipt/knowledge of this order.
Furnish copy of this order to both parties at free of cost.
(
