For Complainant          :             Sri K. Rout, Advocate.

For Ops 1 to 3                :             Sri M. Kurma Rao, Advocate.

For OP No.4                    :             Sri PVS Nanaji Achary, Advocate.

                                                                        -x-

1.                         The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he is the Managing Partner of Maa Gayatri Crusher Unit at Ranikona, Semiliguda engaged in stone crushing, had obtained electricity connection to that unit from the Ops 1 to 3 vide Consumer No.38LI of 11 KV and due to some dispute between the partners in running the unit, the complainant, who had entered into agreement with the OP.1 for supply of electricity connection, requested the Ops to disconnect the power supply permanently to the unit as the unit was unable to pay the outstanding dues and the supply was disconnected on 15.12.2015.  It is submitted that the Ops unfortunately without the knowledge of the complainant-Managing Partner restored the power supply to the unit on 24.02.2016 as per the request of other partner who is running the unit by force without involving the Managing Partner.  The Ops in spite of repeated request of the complainant did not disconnect the power supply to the unit.    It is further submitted that the Collector, Koraput vide Order No.61 dt.12.01.2017 cancelled the NOC issued in favour of the Unit and hence the unit was sealed by the Tahasildar, Semiliguda with request to OP.2 to disconnect the power supply to the unit but the Ops did not disconnect the supply and raised minimum bill of Rs.27, 000/- p.m.  It is also further submitted that outstanding dues piled up due to negligent conduct of the Ops.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to disconnect the electricity supply permanently to the unit, to recover the outstanding dues from the other partner (OP.4) on whose request the power supply was restored without disturbing the Security Deposit, to refund security amount of Rs.6, 46,804/- and to pay Rs.3.00 lacs towards compensation and cost to the complainant.

2.                         The Ops 1, 2 & 3 filed counter in joint denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about power supply to the Maa Gayatri Stone Crusher Unit as per Agreement dt.27.12.2013 entered into with the complainant and the power supply was disconnected for default in payment of energy charges but on receipt of Rs.2.00 lacs the supply was restored on 23.02.2016.  It is contended that since the unit is a partnership firm, under terms and conditions of partnership deed, request for disconnection by a single partner could not be conceded by the Ops and the OP.1 requested the complainant to furnish documents regarding dissolution of partnership to consider the representation of the complainant for such disconnection but the complainant did not furnish the same.  However, the Ops sought opinion of OP.4 who has submitted his written opinion on dt.08.04.2016.  It is contended that the Collector, Koraput has cancelled the NOC in favour of the unit and the Ops are confirmed about that after seeking clarification from the office of the Collector, Koraput.  It is further contended that the unit has deposited a sum of Rs.6, 46,804/- towards Security Deposit with OP.2 and the outstanding with the unit is Rs.4, 52,067.- besides minimum charges as demanded by Ops.  The Ops have challenged the maintainability of this case under C. P. Act.  The Ops further contended that the power supply to the unit has been disconnected on 27.01.2017.  With these and other contentions, denying any fault on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                         The OP No.4 though entered appearance through its A/R, did not prefer to file counter to this case.  We have partly heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs on 02.01.2020.  As the Ops thereafter did not take any step for hearing for long time, the case was posted for orders since it is an old case.  We have carefully perused the materials available on record.

4.                         In this case, it is an admitted fact that Maa Gayatri Crusher Unit at Ranikona, Semiliguda is a partnership firm based on partnership agreement between the complainant and OP No.4 and as per power supply agreement dt.27.12.2013 with the complainant, the Ops have supplied power to the unit vide Consumer No.38LI of 11 KV on receipt of Security Deposit of Rs.6, 46,804/- from the Unit.  It is seen that the complainant is the Managing Partner of the Unit and was looking after all the affairs as per said agreement and the OP.4 was the partner of the unit.

5.                         Before going into the other merits of the case, we have to decide the preliminary objection of the Ops regarding maintainability of this case under C.P. Act.  In their counter the Ops stated that the complainant is not a consumer of the Ops since the electricity was taken to the unit for commercial purpose and hence this case is not maintainable in this Commission.  It is seen that the complainant is the Managing Partner of the unit and as per agreement dt.27.12.2013 he had taken the power supply to the unit.  It is a settled principle of law that though the supply of electricity is a service, the commercial use of electricity would not render the consumer incapable for seeking relief under C. P. Act.  In view of above facts, we safely hold that the complainant is a consumer of the Ops and this case before this Commission is maintainable.

6.                         In this case the Ops disconnected power supply on 15.12.2015 for default in payment of dues by the unit.  The complainant alleges that the power supply was again restored on 24.02.2016 without his knowledge at the request of other partner.  The Ops stated that on receipt of Rs.2.00 lacs they have restored the facility.  It is seen from the record that the complainant being the Managing Partner had requested the SDO, South Co., Sunabeda through a letter dt.07.12.2015 to disconnect the power supply to the unit as the unit was under serious dispute.  In the above circumstances, we do not understand as to how without any letter or intimation from the complainant, the Ops supplied power to the unit only as per the request of other partner.  Things which are to be done in a particular way, they should be done in that way only but not in other way.  If it is arbitrarily done, it counters the law of the land.  The complaint has also requested the Executive Engineer, South Co., Koraput on 10.03.2016 for disconnection of power supply to the unit since illegally connected.  He also requested the DGM, Electrical Circle, Jeypore on 11.03.2016, 26.03.2016 and 28.03.2016 to disconnect the power supply with reminder to SDO, South Co., Sunabeda on 22.03.2016 but the Ops did not take any step to the request of the complainant-Managing Partner.

7.                         The Ops have sought opinion of the other partner-OP.4 regarding disconnection request of the complainant and the OP.4 has submitted his opinion on 08.04.2016 and basing upon the opinion of the OP.4 the Ops did not disconnect the supply.  The Ops took the opinion as paramount without giving any opportunity of being heard to the Managing Partner on whose request the power supply was snapped.  The Ops at para-4 of their counter stated that the unit is being run by the partners under the terms and conditions of the partnership deed, request for disconnection by a single partner could not be considered by the Ops.  At para-8 of their counter, the Ops also stated that the complainant being the Managing Partner of the unit is bound to do needful to the unit as provided under the partnership deed and the Managing Partner is to manage the unit in the interest of the unit and the partners as well.  In the said para the Ops also stated that they could not disconnect the power supply without hearing from the other partner.  If this is so, before restoring the facility, why should not they seek opinion of the Managing Partner?  Further the S.E. (Elect.), Electrical Circle, Jeypore vide its letter No. 1499 dt. 15.10.2019 issued to Santosh Kumar Achary (OP.4) stated that the Ops are only to extend power supply to the unit in absence of a joint request from all the partners.  That means, the Ops are blowing hot and cold at the same time.  This is unfair on the part of the Ops for which the complainant suffers.

8.                         In this case power supply has been disconnected for cancellation of NOC by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Koraput.  The complainant has also prayed to this Commission in this case to disconnect the electricity to the unit permanently besides other prayers.  In the above facts and circumstances of this case, we are not inclined to pass any order on other prayers of the complainant but we must direct the Ops to restore the power supply to the unit, if required, only after receipt of written joint consent of both the partners.  No orders as to compensation and cost.

9.                         Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops 1 to 3 are directed to restore the power supply, if required to the Crusher Unit in question in future, only after receipt of joint request from both the partners in written.  We are not inclined to pass any other direction in this case.

(to dict.)