IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 379/09 DATED 22.12.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Dr.P.Srinivasan, S/o Padmanabhan R/at No.1378, C & D Block, Kuvempunagar, Mysore-570024.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. M.Basappa, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party Assistant Executive Engineer (Electricity), Kuvempunagar Sub-Division -1, Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Company Ltd., Mysore-23.<br /> <br /> (By Sri.M.S.Basavaraju, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 13.10.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 26.10.2009<br /> Date of order : 22.12.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 2 MONTHS 4 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite party, seeking a direction to refund the back billing amount of Rs.30,240/- with interest and a compensation of Rs.30,000/- together with cost of the proceedings.<br /> <br /> 2. It is alleged in the complaint that, the complainant was on tour in Goa on 27.08.2009. The so called Vigilance Team of the opposite party got into the construction spot and took note of certain things and gave a bill and a notice to the wife of the complainant, who is unaware of language and things that were going on. She was asked to sign a notice, which she had complied meekly. In that notice, it is stated that, the installation had an unauthorised additional load. Hence, it was back billed for six months. In the notice, it is stated that, they found 2 HP water pump was being used, 1 cutting machine and 1 granite cutting machine were found being used. The complainant is a doctor by profession. He is law abiding citizen. He would never attempt of violation of rules. He promptly paid the amount under protest, and caused a notice to the opposite party. No reply is received. The opposite party after raiding the premises, not provided the complainant an opportunity of being heard. It is against all ethics and principles of natural justice. Also, the opposite party took note of certain non-existing things at the premises, which are even now not existing. The complainant has used 1 HP water pump. In that notice, it is stated, 2 HP water pump, which is not in existence. Bill of 1 HP powered motor is enclosed. In the notice, the opposite party has not stated, said unauthorized additional use was an offence. On these grounds, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The opposite party has filed objections contending that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is stated that, the complainant had installation with temporary supply of energy with load of 1 KWA. He cannot use energy more than connected load. He ought not to have used the connected load for granite cutting machine, water pumping, lighting more than 1 KWA. He ought not to have violated the terms of the agreement. The Vigilance Squad of the opposite party inspected the premises on 27.08.2009 in presence of the representative of the complainant. Inspection report No.273/09 with details was submitted. As per the report, the complainant is consuming energy more than the connected load i.e. 3.76 KWA rounded to 4 KWA. On the basis of the same, as per the Regulations, claim is made. To avoid immediate disconnection of the installation, back billed amount has been deposited on 10.09.2009, admitting the offence to avoid further legal complications. On receipt of the notice, notice was sent to the complainant to appear before Enquiry Authority on 25.09.2009. The complainant failed to appear. One more opportunity was given by sending notice dated 14.10.2009 to appear before the Authority on 25.10.2009. Then, finally the matter was heard and one more opportunity to the complainant to submit his say on 27.08.2009. None appeared before the Enquiry Authority, which amounts to intentional absence. It is stated that, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. On these grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 4. To substantiate the allegations made in the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. On the other hand, opposite party has filed his affidavit and for him also, certain documents are produced. For the complainant and opposite party written arguments are filed. Also, we have heard the learned advocates for the complainant as well as of the opposite party and perused the entire records.<br /> 5. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and he is entitled to the reliefs sought? <br /> 2. What order?<br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Negative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Point no. 1:- At the outset, learned advocate for the opposite party submitted that, present case is not maintainable before this Forum and in support of the said submission, he relied on the judgement of our Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.21747/04 dated 02.06.2005. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the said judgement in paragraph 9 has observed that, “in view of section 145 of the Act by implication would exclude jurisdiction of Civil Court or any other Forum.” But, there are subsequent recent decisions not only of the Hon’ble various State Commissions and National Commission, but also of the Hon’ble Apex Court to the effect that, the complaints are maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act and the Forum has power to entertain and decide the same. Recent one is reported in III (2009) CPJ 5. We feel it not necessary to narrate the legal position laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in this ruling. In this case, the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation was party appellant before the Hon’ble Apex Court. <br /> <br /> 8. Now, we may proceed to consider the facts of the case.<br /> <br /> 9. The complainant claims that, he is construcing a building for which 1 KWA power is sanctioned by the opposite party. He alleges that on 17.08.2009 Vigilance Team of opposite party inspected the premises of the complainant and allegedly found, as mentioned in the notice 2 HP water pump, 1 cutting machine and another granite cutting machine are being used. The complainant has denied the additional use as alleged by the opposite party. In this connection, learned advocate for the complainant first of all submitted that, it is necessary for the opposite party to prove in fact said machineries were connected and were being used. He submits, in the notice, use of the said machineries and the motor is not stated. In the absence of using the said machineries having connection to the installation is no contravention of the Rule or Regulation. But, from the copy of the report of the vigilance squad, which is produced by the opposite party as well as the complainant, there is specific mention that, the said two machines and motor, were connected. In the report, which is in Kannada, the word used is ‘¸ÀA¥ÀQðvÀ’ which means “connected”. Hence, we found no substance in the argument of the learned advocate that, the motor and the 2 machines were not connected to the installation.<br /> <br /> 10. The complainant contend that, in fact he is using the electric motor to lift the water of 1 HP only whereas in the report, there is mentioned as 2 HP. To support the said contention, complainant produced a bill at Ex.P.3. As stated in this Ex.P.3, the complainant has purchased sub-mershible pump of HP. Firstly, nothing is on record that, the very submershible pump of 1 HP as stated in Ex.P.3 was installed or used by the complainant in the said premises. Secondly, it is relevant to note that, this Ex.P.3 is on a letter head of the shop, which is described as cash bill. As could be seen from the relevant provisions of the Sales Tax Act, cash bill shall have to be issued as provided therein mentioning various particulars. Even otherwise, most important is, said cash bill at Ex.P.3 is dated 13.07.2009. Hence, according to the complainant on 13.07.2009 as claimed, he has purchased submershible pump of 1 HP and installed the same in the premises to lift the water. But, it is relevant to note that, even according to the complainant, the construction of the building has practically completed. The documents produced by both the parties, prima-facie establish that even in the month of January 2009, the complainant had submitted application for renewal or continuation of the temporary connection. Hence, it is clear that much prior to the date of Ex.P.3, the complainant was using the electricity and considering the entire evidence on record, tt appears that just to make out that he is using 1 HP submershible pump, he has managed to obtain Ex.P.3 in the month of July 2009. At the cost of repetition, no bill or receipt issued by the dealer, are produced.<br /> <br /> 11. In the complaint, it is alleged that, the complainant is law abiding citizen and he would never attempt to violate the Rules. Apart from other facts and the evidence on record, Ex.P.3 noted above, prima-facie establish quite contrary to the said allegations.<br /> <br /> 12. In 6th paragraph of the complaint, main grievance of the complainant is that, the raid of the premises was without giving an opportunity of being heard, which is against ethics and principles of natural justice. First of all, in the third paragraph of the complaint, it is specifically alleged that, on the relevant date, the complainant was on tour in Goa. Moreover, no vigilance squad will visit or inspect giving prior notice. If prior notice is given, certainly all wrongs will be set right. Moreover, in third paragraph of the complaint, specifically it is stated that, the vigilance team gave bill and notice. That is the thing that, the squad has to do and is done. In third paragraph of the complaint, the complainant alleging that “so called” vigilance team, even doubt the vigilance team itself. But, the records before the Forum beyond doubt establish, vigilance squad of the opposite party visited the premises of the complainant. Even according to the complainant, when the vigilance squad visited the premises of the complainant, his wife was very much present and she has signed the report. That fact is even admitted by the complainant. Of course, further in this regard, the complainant alleges that, the report is in Kannada and his wife do not understand Kannada language and she was asked to signed the notice, which she complied meekly. If really, she did not understand what is written in the notice or report, in the natural course, she could have refused to sign. It is not the case of the complainant that forcibly the signature was obtained. Moreover, wife of the complainant has not filed any affidavit stating that she signed the report without knowing the contents or that she do not understand Kannada language. It is the specific contention of the opposite party that after inspection of the premises and service of the bill and the report on the wife of the complainant, notice dated 17.09.2009 was sent to the complainant to appear before Enquiry Authority on 25.09.2009. But, the complainant failed to appear. Again, one more notice dated 14.10.2009 was issued. Hence, the allegation of the complainant that against of ethics and principles of natural justice, the opposite party acted, is without substance. It is alleged by the complainant that, in the notice, the opposite party never stated that said unauthorized additional use is an offence. We are of the opinion that, in a notice it need not be pleaded or mentioned. However, in the notice, it is specifically mentioned as per the Rules and Regulations, back bill has been prepared and within 3 months, the installation shall have to be regularized and on failure, for misuse of the electricity, supply will be disconnected as per the Regulations etc. It appears that, the complainant had contended that, the bill is not scientific. However, later, the complainant did not pursue it, but on the bill, details how amount has been arrived at, is narrated.<br /> <br /> 13. On record, there is copy of the report of the vigilance squad and there are correspondence between the parties in addition to the affidavit of the opposite party to substantiate the said facts. Hence, in our opinion, the opposite party has established that, the complainant had additional connection than the sanctioned one illegally. When that is so, the contention of the complainant that act of the opposite party is against ethics or principles of natural justice, is without substance. <br /> 14. In the written arguments, it is stated that, the assessing officer rightly or wrongly had made the assessment, but that cannot be done for more than three months as the connection was for domestic consume and also temporary one. But, even the allegations made in the complainant and other material on record, prima-facie it is established that said connection was for construction of the building, which itself establish not for domestic, but for commercial one.<br /> 15. Considering the facts and evidence on record, as well as discussion made here before, we are of the opinion that, the complainant has miserably failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and any illegality with the opposite party in the alleged act of inspection made by the vigilance squad as well as issuance of the bill in question. <br /> 16. Accordingly, we answer the point in negative.<br /> 17. Point No. 2:- Considering the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order:- <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed, with cost of Rs.2,000/-<br /> 2. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 22nd December 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br />