IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.D.Krishnappa<br /> B.A., L.L.B - President<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. G.V.Balasubramanya<br /> B.E., LL.M - Member<br /> <br /> CC 244/06 DATED 07-12-2006<br /> <br /> Complainant V.R. & Brothers, Plot No.19, Metagalli, K.R.S. Road, Mysore, Rep. by it’s Managing Partner, T.V.Vishwanath.<br /> (By Sri.M.R.S.K, Advocate)<br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Co., Ltd., Rep. by it’s Assistant Executive Engineer, V.V.Mohalla, Mysore.<br /> (By Sri.M.S.B., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 01-09-2006<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 12-10-2006<br /> Date of order : 07-12-2006<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 2 MONTHS 5 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. This dispute has arisen on the complaint of complainant V.R. and Brothers against Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Company Ltd., Mysore filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> 2. The allegations of the complainant in brief are:- that he is a Consumer of the Opposite party taken power supply vide Meter No.7722/P-3/513. That the meter was not working properly, that he requested on 28-01-1992 for replacement of the said meter, but was not replaced. That he paid a sum of Rs.505/- for the month of February 1992 without reading of the meter. The Opposite party disconnected power supply on 10-04-1992, despite is request for restoration of supply the Opposite party did not do so, the Opposite party filed a police complaint in F.I.R. No.59/92 for theft of electricity, but the police filed ‘B’ report. Thereafter, he preferred a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High court then he has referred to the appeal filed before the Appellate Authority and then the deposit of Rs.41,000/- with the Opposite party and thereby stated that there is deficiency in the service of the Opposite party and further alleged that he has another meter No.722/P-2 in respect of which the Opposite party made an Audit demand for Rs.20.126/- which has been challenged in the Civil Court. Therefore, contended that the Opposite party is liable to pay interest on Rs.41,000/- deposited by him with the Opposite party and also damages of Rs.50,000/-.<br /> 3. The Opposite party has resisted the allegations in the version filed by it, admitting that the Complainant is a ‘Consumer’ under them, but denied all other allegations made by him. Further, the Opposite party has denied it’s liability to pay interest on Rs.41,000/- by contending that the amount of Rs.41,000/- was deposited as per the order of the Court and that is adjustable towards the consumption of power in the future bills and therefore, has prayed for dismissal of the Complaint. <br /> 4. During the enquiry, the parties in support of their stands taken have filed their affidavit evidence and have relied upon certain documents like; copy of the F.I.R, correspondences that took place between them and also an Order passed by the Appellate Authority of the Opposite party.<br /> 5. On the above contentions, following points for our determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the Complaint is barred by limitation?<br /> 2. Whether the Complainant proves that there was deficiency in the service of the Opposite party in not supplying the power regularly and therefore, he had to deposit a sum of Rs.41,000/- with the Opposite party on which he is entitled for interest?<br /> 3. Whether the Complainant is entitled for relief as prayed for?<br /> 4. What order?<br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 and 3 : In the Negative.<br /> Point no.4 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Point nos. 1 to 3:- In the affidavit filed by the Complainant in lieu of his evidence in the enquiry has reiterated that for restoration of power supply, he had deposited an amount of Rs.41,000/- and the Opposite party has retained that amount for adjusting to the back billing, but has not paid interest on it and also refers to demand made by the Opposite party in respect of another meter No.P.722/ P-2 as illegal and therefore, has prayed for directing payment of interest on that amount and also damages. An Official of the Opposite party has also filed his affidavit evidence re-asserting the stand they have taken in the version.<br /> 8. On perusal of the contentions of both the parties and copies of the letters that are produced in this proceeding by both the parties. It is found that there had been disruption of power supply to the Complainant installation somewhere during May 1992 and the investigation was ordered in this regard. Thereafter, it is found that the Complainant approached the Hon’ble High Court by way of Writ Petition in which, the Hon’ble High Court passed an Interim Order directing the Opposite party to restore the power supply subject to the petitioner, the Complainant herein depositing a sum of Rs.41,000/- within a period of 3 weeks. Therefore, it is found that the Complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.41,000/- with the Opposite party as per the order of the Hon’ble High Court pending investigation of the allegations of disruption and disconnection of power supply. Thereafter, it is clear that the Hon’ble High Court finally dismissed the Writ Petition. <br /> 9. Thereafter, it is further noticed that the Opposite party after enquiry into the allegations of the Complainant passed an order by back billing the Complainant to pay a sum of Rs.4,16,565/-. Against which the Complainant filed another Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court for the second time in W.P. No.41791/2001 which came to be disposed-off directing the Complainant to exhaust the alternative remedy available under Electricity Regulation Act. Thereafter, it is found that the Complainant preferred an Appeal to the Chief Engineer of Revenue and Appellate Authority against the back billing and that the Appellate Authority allowed the Appeal with a direction to the Opposite party for back billing the Complainant from 1991 till the reconnection of the power supply also to repair the meter or replace the meter, holding that back billing was not proper and also to adjust the deposit made by the Complainant in the future bills. This order of the Appellate Authority passed on 04.03.2003 appears to have become final. Thereafter, this Complaint came to be filed by the Complainant on 05.09.2006. Therefore, the Complaint under these circumstances in our view is barred by limitation as the same is not filed within 2 years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen as provided under section 24(A) Consumer Protection Act. Considering the last cause of action that arose on 04.03.2003 on the day on which the Appellate Authority passed the order. The Complainant has not filed any application or made plea for condonation of the delay by convincing this Forum. Therefore, we hold that the Complaint is barred by limitation and on that ground alone this Complaint is liable to be dismissed.<br /> 10. Coming to the merits of the case, it is manifest from the above facts, that there had been a disruption in the power supply to the installation of the Complainant somewhere in May 1992 and that led too filing of two Writ Petitions, a Civil Suit and an Appeal before the Appellate Authority of the Opposite party. The Order of the Appellate Authority referred to above has become final and conclusive against which none of the parties have taken any action to challenge it. We have also referred to above, that in Writ Petition filed by the Complainant in W.P.No.13654/1992 Hon’ble High Court passed an Interim Order for reconnection of power supply on the Complainant depositing a sum of Rs.41,000/-. Therefore, this deposit was made by the Complainant on the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court without prejudice to the grievances of the Complainant. Finally, the Appeal filed by the Complainant before the Appellate Authority came to be decided by ordering back billing the Complainant from a particular period and that the amount paid by the Complainant to be adjusted in the future bills. <br /> 11. It is not the case of the Complainant that in the back billing made by the Opposite party he was not found due any consumption charges and therefore, deposit of Rs.41,000/- was ordered without any legal basis. It is admitted by the Complainant despite the mal functioning of the meter he was consuming electricity but correct reading of consumption was not made. Therefore, that led to back billing the Complainant after the installation of a proper meter and after taking that reading. The Appellate Authority in it’s order directed that the amount of Rs.41,000/- deposited by the Complainant be adjusted to the future bills. The complainant has not established that back billing him is illegal. Therefore pending decision on a dispute of a Court grants interim order subject to payment of certain amount on which the party who deposits that will not be entitle for interest on it. The complainant who appears to have accepted the order of the appellate authority has not claimed the refund of the amount, but has claimed interest on it for which he is not entitle. Therefore, the claim of the Complainant that he is entitled for interest on that amount is baseless and cannot be entertained. Further, it could be seen that High Court in it’s Interim Order has not ordered for payment of any interest on the deposit in the event of the Complainant succeeding in proving his grievances. The Complainant has also not established his entitlement for interest on a deposit made by him in connection with consumption of electricity under meter No.P.722/P-2. These allegations are made in the Complaint in a casual manner and we find no proof to accede to the claim of the Complainant for awarding of interest. Therefore, the Complaint in our view is not entitled for any of the reliefs and hold that the Complaint is devoid of merits. Accordingly, we answer the above points in the negative and pass the following order:- <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed with cost of Rs.500/-.<br /> 2. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 7th December 2006)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (D.Krishnappa) <br /> President <br /> (G.V.Balasubramanya)<br /> Member<br /> <br />