GESCOM, Represented by its Managing Director, Gulbarga V/S Mr. Vattikutti Venkataramanna Chowdary S/o. Sri. Rammurthy, R/o. K. G. Road, Manvi. - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

CC/10/36

Mr. Vattikutti Venkataramanna Chowdary S/o. Sri. Rammurthy, R/o. K. G. Road, Manvi. - Complainant(s)

Versus

GESCOM, Represented by its Managing Director, Gulbarga - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. Daftari & Daftari

30 Sep 2010

ORDER

Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/10/36

Mr. Vattikutti Venkataramanna Chowdary S/o. Sri. Rammurthy, R/o. K. G. Road, Manvi.						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
GESCOM, Represented by its Managing Director, Gulbarga The Executive Engineer, GESCOM, Raichur The Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele) GESCOM, Manvi						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi, President:- This is a complaint filed by the complainant Vattikutti Venkataramana against Officers 1 to 3 of GESCOM U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct them to pay a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 2% P.M. with cost. 2. The brief facts of the complainants case are that, he was running rice mill in the address shown at cause title of the complaint. He is consumer of opposite GESCOM by taking electricity supply vide RR.No. 5491-P-LT-5 with sanctioned load of 65 HP + 1.25 KW which is less then 67 HP. He deposited EMD amount of Rs. 1,20,210/- to the opposites. At the time of installation, himself brought of the apparatus which are required for installation by the opposites on the assurance that, they will reimburse the price of the apparatus, at the later stage, thereafter meter reader of the installation wrongly recorded the reading and wrongly billed, therefore he made representation before the Chief Engineer Bellary which was verified and directed the opposites to pay the excess amount of Rs. 1,06,544/-, thereafter he sustained loss in his business, his capital amount was blocked due to exorbitant and wrong bills charged by the opposites. Totally his unit became closer for want of power, therefore he requested the opposites to refund EMD amount of Rs. 1,20,210/- but they not shown interest in refunding the EMD amount, even after oral and written request, therefore he fled this complaint for the reliefs as prayed in it. 3. Opposite Nos-1 to 3 GESCOM appeared in this case through their Advocate, filed written version by denying the case of complainant and allegations made against GESCOM, an amount of Rs. 51,250/- out of the EMD was charged as a service line charges for installation, hence it is not refundable. The complainant not informed the closer of his unit till today. The Tamper Proof Box installed by GESCOM was not returned by the complainant, there was no deficiency in service on its part and accordingly it prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds. 4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, he is consumer of RR.No. 5491-P-LT-5 by availing electricity supply from opposite GESCOM with sanctioned load of 65 HP + 1.25 KW by depositing EMD amount of Rs. 1,20,210/- and thereafter he sustained loss due to illegal billing by opposites, therefore he requested the opposites to refund EMD of Rs. 1,20,210/- and amount of Rs. 7,328/- towards cost of the apparatus purchased by him, but opposites shown their negligence in returning the said amount in spite of oral and written requests and thereby all opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services? 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.? 3. What order? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In Negative. (2) In Negative. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 & 2:- 6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. Documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of opposite No-3 Assistant Executive Engineer (E&I) was filed, who is noted as RW-1. Documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-6 are marked. Other opposites have adopted the same affidavit-evidence and documents. 7. From the pleadings of the parties and their respective evidences. It is undisputed fact that, the complainant was running rice mill by availing the electricity supply from opposite GESCOM vide RR No. 5491-P-LT5. It is further undisputed fact that, the complainant deposited EMD amount of Rs. 1,20,210/- with GESCOM for availing the electricity supply to his unit. 8. The first contention of the complainant is that, he purchased Tamper Proof Box which is required to be installed by the opposites on the assurance of opposites that, the price of the said box is going to be refunded, thereafter they have not refunded. 9. In support of this contention, he filed Ex.P-2 which is a bill in respect of Tamper of Proof Box, it is dt. 15-04-2000. On the other hand opposites are contending that, GESCOM itself installed the said box in the unit along with other materials and complainant not informed the closure and not returned those materials to get earnest deposit amount. Further it is contended that, an amount of Rs. 51,250/- is collected as a line service charge, which is not refundable, in support of it, opposites have filed Ex.R-1 Accounts Manual. 10. Taking note of all these facts, we are of the view that, except pleadings to that effect in his complaint, he has not mentioned, it in his letter at Ex.P-5 dt. 07-05-07 sent to Executive Engineer GESCOM, Raichur. But the same is noted in Ex.P-6 dt. 27-03-10 after lapse of three years, he no where pleaded that he intimated the closure of his unit on such and such date, in the light of these circumstances, we are of the view that, purchase of Tamper Box vide Ex.P-2 may not be for the purpose of this RR.No,. but it may be for the purpose of other reasons, accordingly claim of him in this regard is not considered. 11. The learned advocate for opposites contended before us that, the complaint is a time barred complaint and complainant is not entitled for any one of the reliefs as prayed in it. 12. The learned advocate for complainant contended before us that, the complaint is in time. This complaint is filed within two years from the legal notice issued by the complainant dt. 27-03-10 vide Ex.P-6. 13. In the light of the submissions made on both sides regarding the point of limitation, we have gone through the pleadings of complainant as well as opposites. In Para-17 of the complaint, it is stated by him that the cause of action to file this complaint is continuing one, unless the amount is paid accordingly complaint is in time. 14. Opposites not taken the contention of limitation point as urged before us at the time of arguments. However, the limitation point is to be decided by the Forum at any stage of the case irrespective of the fact that, opposites have pleaded it or not. 15. As per the observations made by the Honble National Commission in a case Rukminiyama & Others V/s. M/s. Kirloskar Invest Finance Ltd., reported in 2010(1) CPR 201 (NC) and also the law laid down by Honble Supreme Court in a case State Bank of India V/s. B.S. Agricultural Industry reported in (2009) 4 SCC 191 = (2009) 5 SCC 121 as under: The expression shall not admit a complaint occurring in section 24(A) of C.P. Act, it is a short legislature command, to the Consumer Forum to examine on its own, whether complaint has been filed within limitation period of two years prescribed there under. It is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of section 24(A) of C.P. Act and give effect of it. 16. In a case of New India Assurance Company Ltd., V/s. Gurupadama reported in 2010 1 CPR 337 (NC), The Honble National Commission held as under: Section 24(A) of Consumer Protection Act provides Consumer Forum shall not admit a complaint, unless it is filed within two years from the date on which cause of action had arisen. Complaint cannot be entertained after two years specified that he had sufficient cause for filing the complaint within prescribed period. No acknowledgement of right of the complainant or its liability of the Insurance Company admitted in between the date of cause of action and date of complainants letter. 17. In another case Ganamani Anasuya V/s. Parvatavani Amarinder Chowdary reported in AIR 2007 Supreme Court 2380 the Honble Supreme Court held as It is for which court to determine the question has to whether the suit is barred by limitation or not irrespective of the fact that, such plea has been taken or not by the parties, such jurisdictional need not be pleaded. 18. Keeping in view of the principles of the rulings referred above. Now we have to appreciate the case of complainant to see as to whether this complaint is barred by limitation or not, irrespective of the fact that, whether opposites have taken limitation plea or not. 19. Cause of action is consisting of bundle of facts it differs to case to case depending upon the facts of each case, Consumer Protection Act has not defined the term cause of action in it. Hence we have followed the principles of the rulings of the Honble Supreme Court regarding the meaning of cause of action has noted in Kandi Malla Raghavayya & Company V/s. National Insurance Company reported in (2009) 7 SCC 768. 20. On perusal of the letter written by the complainant at Ex.P-5 dt. 07-05-07 it clearly shows that, he intimated the fact of closer of his unit on 25-10-04. Admittedly Ex.P-5 came into existence after round about three years from 25-10-04, thereafter this complainant remained silent till issuance of legal notice Ex.P-6 dt. 27-03-10 and thereafter this complaint is filed on 24-05-10, that means, the cause of action arosen to the complainant on 07-05-07 itself as the contents of that letter clearly discloses that opposites are not considering his request, therefore the legal notice Ex.P-6 dt. 27-03-10 cannot create new cause of action for the complainant as contended by him in his complaint. Admittedly this complaint is filed on 24-05-10 which is after two years from the date of cause of action vide Ex.P-5 dt. 07-05-07. The complainant not filed any application for to condone the delay U/sec. 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act, as such, we are of the view that, as per the principles held by the lordships of the Honble Supreme Court in State Bank of Indias case and Kandi Malla Raghavayyas case, this complaint is barred by limitation and Ex.P-6 legal notice dt. 27-03-10 is not enlarging the period of limitation from 07-05-07 to till the date of filing of the complaint 24-05-10. Hence we have rejected the arguments of the learned advocate for complainant in this regard and came to a conclusion that, this complaint is barred by limitation U/sec. 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act. 21. As regards to other submissions made on both sides are not much importance to decide the facts and laws involved in this case and accordingly we have not taken those points for discussions and answered Point No-1 in Negative. POINT NO.2:- 22. In view of our finding on Point No- 1, the complainant is not entitled for any one of the reliefs as prayed in it, accordingly it is also answered in Negative. POINT NO.3:- 17. In view of our findings on Point No- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER This complaint filed by the complainant against opposite Nos. 1 to 3 is dismissed. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 30-09-10) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi, President:- This is a complaint filed by the complainant Vattikutti Venkataramana against Officers 1 to 3 of GESCOM U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct them to pay a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 2% P.M. with cost. 2. The brief facts of the complainants case are that, he was running rice mill in the address shown at cause title of the complaint. He is consumer of opposite GESCOM by taking electricity supply vide RR.No. 5491-P-LT-5 with sanctioned load of 65 HP + 1.25 KW which is less then 67 HP. He deposited EMD amount of Rs. 1,20,210/- to the opposites. At the time of installation, himself brought of the apparatus which are required for installation by the opposites on the assurance that, they will reimburse the price of the apparatus, at the later stage, thereafter meter reader of the installation wrongly recorded the reading and wrongly billed, therefore he made representation before the Chief Engineer Bellary which was verified and directed the opposites to pay the excess amount of Rs. 1,06,544/-, thereafter he sustained loss in his business, his capital amount was blocked due to exorbitant and wrong bills charged by the opposites. Totally his unit became closer for want of power, therefore he requested the opposites to refund EMD amount of Rs. 1,20,210/- but they not shown interest in refunding the EMD amount, even after oral and written request, therefore he fled this complaint for the reliefs as prayed in it. 3. Opposite Nos-1 to 3 GESCOM appeared in this case through their Advocate, filed written version by denying the case of complainant and allegations made against GESCOM, an amount of Rs. 51,250/- out of the EMD was charged as a service line charges for installation, hence it is not refundable. The complainant not informed the closer of his unit till today. The Tamper Proof Box installed by GESCOM was not returned by the complainant, there was no deficiency in service on its part and accordingly it prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds. 4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, he is consumer of RR.No. 5491-P-LT-5 by availing electricity supply from opposite GESCOM with sanctioned load of 65 HP + 1.25 KW by depositing EMD amount of Rs. 1,20,210/- and thereafter he sustained loss due to illegal billing by opposites, therefore he requested the opposites to refund EMD of Rs. 1,20,210/- and amount of Rs. 7,328/- towards cost of the apparatus purchased by him, but opposites shown their negligence in returning the said amount in spite of oral and written requests and thereby all opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services? 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.? 3. What order? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In Negative. (2) In Negative. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 & 2:- 6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. Documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of opposite No-3 Assistant Executive Engineer (E&I) was filed, who is noted as RW-1. Documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-6 are marked. Other opposites have adopted the same affidavit-evidence and documents. 7. From the pleadings of the parties and their respective evidences. It is undisputed fact that, the complainant was running rice mill by availing the electricity supply from opposite GESCOM vide RR No. 5491-P-LT5. It is further undisputed fact that, the complainant deposited EMD amount of Rs. 1,20,210/- with GESCOM for availing the electricity supply to his unit. 8. The first contention of the complainant is that, he purchased Tamper Proof Box which is required to be installed by the opposites on the assurance of opposites that, the price of the said box is going to be refunded, thereafter they have not refunded. 9. In support of this contention, he filed Ex.P-2 which is a bill in respect of Tamper of Proof Box, it is dt. 15-04-2000. On the other hand opposites are contending that, GESCOM itself installed the said box in the unit along with other materials and complainant not informed the closure and not returned those materials to get earnest deposit amount. Further it is contended that, an amount of Rs. 51,250/- is collected as a line service charge, which is not refundable, in support of it, opposites have filed Ex.R-1 Accounts Manual. 10. Taking note of all these facts, we are of the view that, except pleadings to that effect in his complaint, he has not mentioned, it in his letter at Ex.P-5 dt. 07-05-07 sent to Executive Engineer GESCOM, Raichur. But the same is noted in Ex.P-6 dt. 27-03-10 after lapse of three years, he no where pleaded that he intimated the closure of his unit on such and such date, in the light of these circumstances, we are of the view that, purchase of Tamper Box vide Ex.P-2 may not be for the purpose of this RR.No,. but it may be for the purpose of other reasons, accordingly claim of him in this regard is not considered. 11. The learned advocate for opposites contended before us that, the complaint is a time barred complaint and complainant is not entitled for any one of the reliefs as prayed in it. 12. The learned advocate for complainant contended before us that, the complaint is in time. This complaint is filed within two years from the legal notice issued by the complainant dt. 27-03-10 vide Ex.P-6. 13. In the light of the submissions made on both sides regarding the point of limitation, we have gone through the pleadings of complainant as well as opposites. In Para-17 of the complaint, it is stated by him that the cause of action to file this complaint is continuing one, unless the amount is paid accordingly complaint is in time. 14. Opposites not taken the contention of limitation point as urged before us at the time of arguments. However, the limitation point is to be decided by the Forum at any stage of the case irrespective of the fact that, opposites have pleaded it or not. 15. As per the observations made by the Honble National Commission in a case Rukminiyama & Others V/s. M/s. Kirloskar Invest Finance Ltd., reported in 2010(1) CPR 201 (NC) and also the law laid down by Honble Supreme Court in a case State Bank of India V/s. B.S. Agricultural Industry reported in (2009) 4 SCC 191 = (2009) 5 SCC 121 as under: The expression shall not admit a complaint occurring in section 24(A) of C.P. Act, it is a short legislature command, to the Consumer Forum to examine on its own, whether complaint has been filed within limitation period of two years prescribed there under. It is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of section 24(A) of C.P. Act and give effect of it. 16. In a case of New India Assurance Company Ltd., V/s. Gurupadama reported in 2010 1 CPR 337 (NC), The Honble National Commission held as under: Section 24(A) of Consumer Protection Act provides Consumer Forum shall not admit a complaint, unless it is filed within two years from the date on which cause of action had arisen. Complaint cannot be entertained after two years specified that he had sufficient cause for filing the complaint within prescribed period. No acknowledgement of right of the complainant or its liability of the Insurance Company admitted in between the date of cause of action and date of complainants letter. 17. In another case Ganamani Anasuya V/s. Parvatavani Amarinder Chowdary reported in AIR 2007 Supreme Court 2380 the Honble Supreme Court held as It is for which court to determine the question has to whether the suit is barred by limitation or not irrespective of the fact that, such plea has been taken or not by the parties, such jurisdictional need not be pleaded. 18. Keeping in view of the principles of the rulings referred above. Now we have to appreciate the case of complainant to see as to whether this complaint is barred by limitation or not, irrespective of the fact that, whether opposites have taken limitation plea or not. 19. Cause of action is consisting of bundle of facts it differs to case to case depending upon the facts of each case, Consumer Protection Act has not defined the term cause of action in it. Hence we have followed the principles of the rulings of the Honble Supreme Court regarding the meaning of cause of action has noted in Kandi Malla Raghavayya & Company V/s. National Insurance Company reported in (2009) 7 SCC 768. 20. On perusal of the letter written by the complainant at Ex.P-5 dt. 07-05-07 it clearly shows that, he intimated the fact of closer of his unit on 25-10-04. Admittedly Ex.P-5 came into existence after round about three years from 25-10-04, thereafter this complainant remained silent till issuance of legal notice Ex.P-6 dt. 27-03-10 and thereafter this complaint is filed on 24-05-10, that means, the cause of action arosen to the complainant on 07-05-07 itself as the contents of that letter clearly discloses that opposites are not considering his request, therefore the legal notice Ex.P-6 dt. 27-03-10 cannot create new cause of action for the complainant as contended by him in his complaint. Admittedly this complaint is filed on 24-05-10 which is after two years from the date of cause of action vide Ex.P-5 dt. 07-05-07. The complainant not filed any application for to condone the delay U/sec. 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act, as such, we are of the view that, as per the principles held by the lordships of the Honble Supreme Court in State Bank of Indias case and Kandi Malla Raghavayyas case, this complaint is barred by limitation and Ex.P-6 legal notice dt. 27-03-10 is not enlarging the period of limitation from 07-05-07 to till the date of filing of the complaint 24-05-10. Hence we have rejected the arguments of the learned advocate for complainant in this regard and came to a conclusion that, this complaint is barred by limitation U/sec. 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act. 21. As regards to other submissions made on both sides are not much importance to decide the facts and laws involved in this case and accordingly we have not taken those points for discussions and answered Point No-1 in Negative. POINT NO.2:- 22. In view of our finding on Point No- 1, the complainant is not entitled for any one of the reliefs as prayed in it, accordingly it is also answered in Negative. POINT NO.3:- 17. In view of our findings on Point No- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER This complaint filed by the complainant against opposite Nos. 1 to 3 is dismissed. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 30-09-10) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.