THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF JULY, 2024
APPEALs NO.218/2012 and 242/2013
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER
1. APPEALs No.218/2012 and 242/2023
BESCOM,
R/b Assistant Executive Engineer, ...Appellant/s
S6, Sub-Division, BESCOM,
JP Nagar, Bengaluru-560 078
(By Ms.Lurdu Mary D’Mello, Advocate)
-Versus-
Bhagya,
W/o J.Kumaraswamy,
Aged 33 years, ...Respondent/s
No.26, Rajeev Gandhi Road,
JP Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 078
(By Sri.H.V.Devaraju, Advocate)
O R D E R
BY SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Appellant and Respondent are the same in both Appeals and the facts involved in these Appeals are one and the same. Hence, these Appeals are taken up together and are being disposed of by a common order.
2. Two appeals filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party against the same cause of action. The Respondent had filed complaints before the District Commission vide CC.No.1757/2011 and No.40/2012 alleging deficiency in service in disconnecting the electricity supplying RR No.6S9506Lt3 and RR.No.6S9506-TL3. The District Commissions after trail allowed the complaints and directed this appellant not to disconnect the electricity supply and also directed not to enforce the notice dated 27.8.2011. In another appeal the Appellant/Opposite Party has filed a complaint vide No.40/2012 for not to collect the amount demanded as per the bill dated 16.12.2011.
3. The District Commission after trail allowed the complaint and directed this appellant not to recovery the any amount claimed under the bill. In fact both complaints are for the common cause of action, since they have issued notice for payment of Rs.10,06,416/- for the usage of electricity consumption. The said bill was issued only after the inspection done by their vigilance department. The reports submitted by the said vigilance department have noticed there is electricity usage and unfortunately the consumption limits of units were calculated at 5 numerical instead of 6 numerical. Hence, there is a mistake in calculating the consumption, after rectification they have issued arrears to the tune of Rs.10,06,416/- for the electricity consumption. But the District Consumer Commission without considering the said facts had directed this appellant not to collect the said amount. In fact, the electricity consumption was utilized by the respondent for commercial purpose and as per the meter reading they have issued electricity bill. There is no cause of action to file a complaint itself before the District Commission. The District Commission without considering the said facts and allowed the complaint. The order passed by the District Commission lacks legality. Hence prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission and dismiss the complaints.
4. Heard arguments.
5. On perusal of the certified copy of the orders of both complaints and memorandum of both appeals, we noticed that the complainant had obtained electricity supply for commercial purpose vide RR No.6S9506Lt3 and RR No.6S9506-LT3 and subsequently after noticing both meter readings they have issued a back bill dated 27.8.2011 for an amount of Rs.17,76,260/- in complaint No.1757/2011 and bill dated 16.12.2011 for an amount of Rs.10,04,416/- in complaint No.40/2012. The only ground for issuance of the notice for the payment of the said huge amount is that at the time of meter reading it was wrongly taken as 5 digits instead of 6 digits from December, 2005. Hence, the said reading was not proper, after the inspection, it was noticed that there was wrongly meter reading was provided. Hence after rectification, they have issued arrears of consumption of electricity for payment.
6. Aggrieved by the said, the complainant approached the District Commission alleging deficiency in service. In fact, the complainant is under obligation to pay the electricity consumption whenever the defect was noticed and fresh bill was issued. Mere issuance of electricity bill for arrears does not amount to any deficiency of service. The complainant had not approached the appellate authority of the BESCOM with respect to the report submitted by the team of officials who visited the meter for inspection. In the absence of such, we hold mere issuance of notice and bill not amounts to any deficiency of service. The District Commission fails to appreciate the mistake in reading of the meter and also not appreciated the bill issued by this appellant for payment of the arrears towards consumption of electricity which was utilized for commercial purpose. Hence, the order passed by the District Commission is not in accordance with the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant is liable to pay the amount demanded by this appellant. As such the appeals are allowed and the complaints are hereby dismissed. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R
The appeals are allowed. No order as to cost.
The impugned order passed by the 1st Addl. District Consumer Commission, Bengaluru in CC.No.1757/2011 dated 14-12-2011 and the impugned order passed by the 2nd Addl. District Consumer Commission, Bengaluru in CC.No.40/2012 dated 19-1-2013 are hereby set-aside. Consequently, the complaints filed by the complainant are hereby dismissed.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.
Lady Member. Judicial Member
