Kerala

Idukki

CC/116/2019

V Subramannian - Complainant(s)

Versus

C A Felix - Opp.Party(s)

14 Oct 2022

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :13.6.2019

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the   14^th  day of October, 2022

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR                   PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P.                               MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S.                            MEMBER

CC NO.116/2019

Between

Complainant                                            :   V.  Subrahmanian,

                                                                    Rtd.  Assistant Executive Engineer,

                                                                    Marble Trust Building,

                                                                    Cheruthoni, Idukki Colony P.O.

       (By Adv: K.K. Jayakumar)

And

Opposite Parties                                       :  1.  C.A. Felix,

                                                                        Marble Trust Building,

                                                                        Cheruthoni, Idukki Colony P.O.

                                                                        Idukki.

            (By Adv: George Thomas)

        2.  Assistant Engineer,

                                                                         Kerala State Electricity Board,

   Electrical Major Section, Painavu,

                                                                         Idukki Colony P.O. 

 (By Adv: Lissy M.M.)

O R D E R

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

1. This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act, for short).  Complaint averments are briefly discussed here under :

 

          Complainant is a retired KSEB Assistant Executive Engineer.  On 1.8.2017, he had entered into an agreement with the 1^st opposite party who is the owner of a building complex, namely, Marble Trust Building, situated in Idukki Colony,                                                                                                                     (cont….2)

• 2  -

Cheruthoni.  As per the agreement, complainant had given Rs.7 lakhs to 1^st opposite party and thereafter Block No.2 in the ground floor of the building was given to complainant by 1^st opposite party, upon rent.  Out of the aforesaid 7 lakhs, 1^st opposite party had agreed to pay 12% interest upon Rs.3 lakhs and interest upon remaining Rs.4 lakhs was to be appropriated towards rent of the building portion let out to complainant.  On 8.6.2019, electric connection to the building portion occupied by complainant was found to be disconnected.  Complainant submits that he used to give his portion of electric charge promptly to 1^st opposite party.  Disconnection of power supply to the building portion,  occupied by complainant, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party.  This  also amounts to unfair trade practice.  Complainant is entitled to get separate power connection by installing separate meter for the building portion possessed by him from 2^nd opposite party who is the Assistant Engineer of Electric Major Section of KSEB at Painavu.  As per agreement, 2^nd opposite party cannot disconnect the power supply without permission from 1^st opposite party.  Complainant had suffered inconvenience and mental agony due to unexpected power supply disconnection.  Complainant therefore prays for reinstatement of power supply to block No.2 of the building portion occupied by him.  He also seeks direction against 1^st opposite party against disconnection of water supply to the building portion in his occupancy.  He further prays for compensation of Rs.1 lakh from 1^st opposite party for deficiency in service and consequential physical and mental agony caused to him.  Complainant also seeks Rs.10,000/- from 2^nd opposite party towards litigation cost. 

 

          2. Notice was served upon both opposite parties.  No written version is seen filed by either of them.  Along with the main case, complainant had filed I.A. No.30/2019 and I.A. No.31/2019  seeking Interim directions.  1^st opposite party had filed written objection upon these applications.  Case of 1^st opposite party, as evident from these objections are briefly narrated here under :

 

          According to 1^st opposite party, petition does not disclose the entire truth.  It is admitted that complainant is a retired KSEB Engineer.  He is being looked after by a person, Rama, by name.  Opposite party is not aware of ailments or disabilities of complainant.  Contentions taken by complainant cannot be termed as a consumer dispute and this Commission has no jurisdiction to decide the same.  Disputes regarding rent agreement, would come within the purview of Rent Control Act.  On 29.12.2018, before the filing of this case, complainant had filed OS 16/2018 before Idukki Munsif Court, which is pending.  An Interim Injunction                                                                                                          (cont…..3)

• 3  -

 

has been granted in favour of complainant in that suit, on 13.6.2019.  Complainant

had suppressed this fact and filed this case.  Besides, complainant had also filed OS 44/2019, before Idukki Munsif Court,  in the course of which 2^nd block of the building has been attached.  1^st opposite party has not caused any deficiency in service or had resorted to unfair trade practice.  In fact, no such issues arise for consideration as there is no service provider – consumer relationship between  1^st opposite party and complainant respectively.  Complaint is to be dismissed along with the applications.

 

          3. Thereafter, case was posted for evidence before which sufficient opportunity was granted to both sides to take steps.  Complainant alone has given evidence as PW1.  Copy of agreement was marked as Ext.P1 from his side.  Complainant was not cross examined.  No evidence was tendered by opposite parties.  In fact, opposite parties were not present on 29.9.2022, the date on which the case was finally adjourned for evidence.  There was no representation from their side.  Hence case was taken for orders.  Now the points which arise for consideration are :

1)  Whether complaint is maintainable ?

2)  Whether there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 ? 

3)  Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for ?

4)  Final Order and costs ?

 

4.  Point Nos.1 to 3 are considered together :

 

          As per complainant averments, complainant was inducted into a portion of the building owned by 1^st opposite party as his tenant.  A lump sum amount was given to 1^st opposite party and interest accruing upon a portion of the same was to be appropriated towards rent of the building.  Thus  admittedly, complainant is tenant of the building owned by 1^st opposite party.  That being so, there is no consumer – service provider relationship between complainant and 1^st opposite party.  This aspect has been made clear by Apex Court in its decision rendered in Laxmiben Laxmichand Shah Vs. Sakarben Kanji Chandran and others (2001 KHC 3995). There are no allegations of deficiency in service against 2^nd opposite party. Hence the further question whether there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice does not arise for consideration.  Complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs prayed for.  Point Nos.1 to 3 are answered accordingly. 

                                                                                                                 (cont….4)

• 4  -

Point NO.3 :

 

          In the result, this complaint is rejected as not maintainable.  Parties shall take back copies of pleadings, petitions and documents submitted by them respectively.  Interim Orders passed in this case will stand vacated.

 

                Pronounced by this Commission on this the   14^th   day of October, 2022

 

 

                                                                                          Sd/-

  SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                              Sd/-

            SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

                              Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

                                                                                Forwarded by Order,

 

 

 

                                                                         ASSISTANT REGISTRAR