Karnataka

Gadag

CC/111/2019

Krishna Manohar Kadlikoppa - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chief Executive Engineer HESCOM Hubli and others - Opp.Party(s)

M.B.Sajjanar

09 Nov 2020

ORDER

-::O R D E R::-

 

BY: SMT.C.H.SAMIUNNISA ABRAR, PRESIDENT.

 

1.       The complainant has filed this complaint claiming direction to the OPs to pay Rs.2,00,000/- for illegally disconnecting the electric supply and to reconnect the same, Rs.1,50,000/- p.m towards rent,
Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and financial loss, Rs.5,000/- towards expenses and such other relief.

 

-::Brief facts of the case are as under::-

2.      The case of the complainant is that, he is the owner of building bearing No.4/84 measuring 1540 sq.ft., situated at Bellatti road,   Shirahatti and he obtained     RR No.SHT No.39503.      The said building has been given to OP No.4 under rent basis for Rs.16,940/- at the rate of Rs.11/- per sq.ft as per para 9 of Lease Deed from 01.07.2014 as per the registered lease deed dated 26.06.2014 entered between complainant and OP No.4.  It is further submitted that, in the said lease deed at para 10, it is mentioned that, the telephone bill, electricity bill and water bill will be paid by the OP No.4 and handed over to the OP No.4. The said agreement has been executed by the Branch Manager, SBM, Shirahatti, later the same has been merged with SBI and as such, the SBI is made as a party to this proceeding.  The said Branch was running up to merging of the SBM with SBI and thereafter shifted to some other place.  The OP No.4 was paying the amount as per the electricity bill.  It is further submitted that, on 11.06.2018 OP No.3 issued notice stating that, there is a balance of Rs.3,06,638/- towards the above said RR Number as per the calculation  10, scale 1, the said amount is to be paid by the complainant.  If the complainant failed to pay the same, the electricity connection will be disconnected without any information.  The complainant has paid the amount as per the electricity bill issued by the OP No.1 to 3.  The complainant has handed over the building to OP No.4 under rent basis and the complainant is running his family from the said income.  The OP No.1 to 3 have given electricity connection as per the rules and the tenants will not come forward if the electricity is cut off.  It is further submitted that, complainant handed over the building to OP No.4 from 02.01.2016 to May-2018, the complainant has no way concerned to the said period in paying the electricity bill.  The OP No.1 to 3 colluded with OP No.4 and issued the notice demanding the balance even though the payment has been made by the complainant.  The tenants are trying to vacate the building due to disconnection of electric supply, if that is so, the complainant will lose his income of Rs.2,00,000/-, the same is to be borne by the OPs, which caused financial loss and mental agony for the deficiency of service on the part of OPs.  Thereafter, the complainant got issued legal notice to the OPs on 29.04.2019, for which the OP No.1 and 4 replied.            The cause of action arose for this complaint on 29.04.2019 when the notice issued to the OPs.  Hence, the OPs are liable to pay Rs.2,00,000/- for disconnecting the electric supply illegally and to reconnect the same, Rs.1,50,000/- p.m towards rent,
Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and financial loss, Rs.5,000/- towards expenses.

 

  3.    Registered the complaint and notice was ordered, as such OPs present before the Forum and filed written version, the contents are as follows.

Written Version of the OP 1 to 3

1. The OP No.1 to 3 contended that complaint of complainant is not maintainable either in law or facts, because they have issued notice to the complainant to recover the electric consumption bill as per rules.
2. It is further submitted that, the complainant is the owner of building to which the RR No.SHT No.39503 was installed and the said building has been given to OP No.4 on rent basis as per the registered lease deed dated 26.06.2014 and the building is handed over to OP No.4 and as per the said agreement, the telephone bill, electricity bill and water bill is to be paid by the OP No.4, the same is not concerned to these OPs.  As per the agreement, OP No.4 has paid the electricity consumption bill, but the payment made by the OP No.4 differs to the bill issued by them against the consumption. It is true that, they have issued notice to the complainant demanding to pay the balance amount of Rs.3,06,638/- as he is the owner of the building and if he fails to pay the same, they will disconnect the electricity supply.  It is further submitted that, there is an agreement that, if there is any balance by the consumer, the same is to be paid by the consumer when the HESCOM authority demanding to pay it.  The agreement between the consumer and the electricity supply company is subject to errors and omissions which is subject to rectification by the concerned authority.  It is not true that, the building is handed over to OP No.4 for the period from 02.01.2016 to May-2018, as such complainant is no way concerned to the electricity bill consumed under the above said RR Number. Likewise, the OPs have recovered Rs.1,17,817/- from M/s Indus Towers, Sy.No.284/2A, Hebbal, Shirahatti, Rs.8,00,929.98 from M/s Indus Towers Ltd., Sy.No.154/3, Magadi, Shirahatti and Rs.1,54,574.72 from M/s Teritary Manager, Bharat Petroleum Ltd., Haripur, Shirahatti under Calculation 10 and Scale 1 generated from the computer.  The above said firms have paid the bill amount without any objection.  As such, the OPs have not committed any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice with the complainant and hence, prayed dismiss the complaint.   

Written Version of the OP-4

3. The OP No.4 contended that complaint of complainant is totally baseless and it is not true and correct both on facts and law.  The contents of para 1,2,4,5,6,10,13,15 and 16 of complaint are admitted.  The contents of para 9 of the complaint is partly true, it has paid all the electricity bill issued by the OP No.1 to 3, the rest of the facts is to be proved by the complainant. The contents of para 11 are partly true, but this OP is not responsible for the demand of the electricity bill which is given by way of notice.  The contents of para 12 and 14 are denied, the same is to be proved by the complainant. 
4. It is further submitted that, there is a lease agreement with the complainant under registered lease deed.  As per the terms of the agreement, the OP No.4 has paid the electricity charges as and when the bills were issued by the OP No.1 to 3.  This OP vacated the building by paying the entire electricity bill as per the lease agreement.  The mistake in the billing is the billing clerks of the OP No.1 to 3 and the same is to be recovered from the staff of the OP No.1 to 3 for the negligence of duty.  The OP No.1 to 3 have not issued any demand notice and hence, there is no right to recover the amount from them. This Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the matter as the matter is of supply of electricity to the commercial premises. There is no contractual relation with the OP No.1 to 4 and the contract is only between complainant and OP No.1 to 3.  Therefore, anything is recoverable in respect of electricity charges, it should be from the complainant as there is no privity of contract of OP No.4 with OP No.1 to 3.  Hence, it is prayed that, the complaint against OP No.4 is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.

4.      The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and filed 31 documents.  The Branch Officer of OP No.1 and 2 filed his affidavit evidence and filed 57 documents, which are as follows;

COMPLAINANT FILED DOCUMENTS AS follows

	Particulars of Documents	Date of Document
C-1	Statement sheet with 3 Bills
C-2	Request letter by complainant
C-3 & 4	Notice issued by HESCOM with bill
C-5 to 10	KEB bills
C-11 & 12	Letter by complainant to HESCOM, Shirahatti
C-13 & 14	Notice	20.01.2019 & 30.01.2019
C-15	Postal receipt
C-16	Reply to notice
C-17	Letter by HESCOM to OP 4
C-18	Letter to complainant by HESCOM
C-19	Legal Notice
C-20	Reply notice with postal receipt
C-21	Notice
C-22	Notice
C-23 to 25	Postal receipts
C-26 to 31	Postal acknowledgements

 

OPs FILED DOCUMENTS AS follows

	Particulars of Documents	Date of Document
OP-1	Legal Notice
OP-2	Postal receipt
OP-3	Postal acknowledgement
OP-4	Postal receipt
OP-5	Postal acknowledgement
OP-6	Back bill
OP-7	Letter by HESCOM
OP-8	Letter to complainant by HESCOM
OP-9	Letter to complainant by HESCOM
OP-10	Back bill
OP-11 to 14	Bill details
OP-15	Customer History
OP-16	Rating Report
OP-17	Order by HESCOM
OP-18	Tax Invoice
OP-19	Letter by HESCOM
OP-20	Current Transfer Report
OP-21	Test Report
OP-22
OP-23
OP-24
OP-25	Order by HESCOM
OP-26	Tax Invoice
OP-27	Transformer Oil Test Certificate
OP-28 & 29	Bills
OP-30	Feasibility report
OP-31
OP-32	Sketch
OP-33	Observation report
OP-34
OP-35
OP-36 to 38	Abstract with particulars with calculation
OP-39 & 40	Letter by HESCOM to complainant with conditions
OP-41	Routine Test Certificate
OP-42	Tax Invoice
OP-43	Cash receipt
OP-44	Guarantee Certificate
OP-45	Joint Inventory
OP-46	Approval by HESCOM
OP-47
OP-48 to 50	Challan with details
OP-51 to 56	Estimation with sketch and details of assets created
OP-57	Agreement for supply of low tension electrical energy

 

5.     On the basis of above said pleading, oral and documentary evidence, the following points arises for adjudication which are as follows:

1.       Whether the Complainant proves that the complainant is       come under the purview of Consumer Forum to say that,
         he is a consumer?

2.       What order?

6.      Our Answer to the above points are:-

1.  

 

2.  

REASONS

7.      Point No-1:- The complainant has filed this complaint against the OPs stating that, he had leased his building to OP No.4 which has been situated at Shirahatti measuring 1540 sq.ft., and the said building had an electric connection bearing meter No.RR No.SHT39503.  The said property had been leased to OP No.4 as stated supra by executing registered lease deed.  As per the lease deed the bill amount had to be paid by OP No.4.  During merging process of the Bank occurred, the said Bank had been vacated by OP No.4, but OP No.4 has not paid the amount of Rs.3,06,638/- to OP No.1 to 4, for that OP No.1 to 3 have disconnected the electricity supply.  For that, the complainant alleging that they made deficiency in service. 

8.      On the other hand, OPs filed objection stating that, OP No.1 to 3 admitted that, complainant is a consumer to them.  But they denied all the allegations made in the complaint and submits that, the meter has been in the name of complainant and notice has been sent to the complainant prior to the disconnection of electricity supply, complainant had not heed to the said notice and not paid the bill amount.  As per the agreement between OPs and complainant, complainant accepted that, he is ready to pay the arrear amount of the bills.

9.      OP No.4 filed written version and submits that, they paid the electric bills up to date and they are not liable to pay the bill and submits that, it is the mistake of OPs employees, OP No.4 is not responsible for the same.  

10.    Ongoing through the records on file and the arguments heard from both the parties, it is undisputed fact that, complainant has leased his premises to OP No.4 and complainant is a consumer to OP No.1 to 3.  The important point is to be discussed here is that, whether complainant is entitled to file a complaint before the Consumer Forum.   When the complainant is leased his property to the Bank, it is clear that, the premises is used for commercial purpose.  Anyhow complainant has taken a contention that, the he had run his family with the help of the building rent.  But, it is clear that, the property has been leased to the OP No.4 and as per the document Ex.OP-57, it is clear that, the electricity supply had been taken for commercial purpose.  Such being the fact, there is no need to discuss more about the same.

          Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of C.P. Act, 1986 speaks that:

(ii) (hires or avails of) any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who (hires or avails of) the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person (but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose);

(Explanation:- For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment;) 

As stated supra, complainant cannot take shelter under C.P Act, Hence, we answer point No.1 is in Negative.

11.    Point No.2:-        For the reasons and discussion made above we proceed to pass the following:-

6698606.  

1. The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.   
2. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.  

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court 9^th day of November-2020)

 

 

         (Shri B.S.Keri)                                      (Smt.C.H.Samiunnisa Abrar)

             MEMBER                                                     PRESIDENT