BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A.,LLB., Member, 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.C.C.17/2010 Order dated this the 30th day of June 2010 COMPLAINANT/S Sri.H.K.Yogesh S/o Gooligowda, R/o Hosakere Village, Maddur Taluk. (By Sri.Chikkamari., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S 1.The Assistant Engineer, Besagarahalli Circle, K.P.T.C.L. Besagarahalli. 2.The Assistant Executive Engineer, K.P.T.C.L. Maddur. (By Sri.G.S.Mahadevaswamy., Advocate) Date of complaint 04.02.2010 Date of service of notice to Ops 26.02.2010 Date of order 30.06.2010 Total Period 4 Months 4 days Result The complaint is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite parties claiming compensation of Rs.25,000/- alleging deficiency in service. 2. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is a consumer of the Opposite parties having obtained electric supply from 15.05.2008 in R.R.No.MRL.6829. All of is sudden on 02.12.2008, the 1st Opposite party along with lineman came and cut of the electricity supply by taking away the fuse from the meter in the absence of the Complainant, though as on that date he was not due of any arrears. Without prior intimation and though there was no arrears of electric charges, they have disconnected the electricity supply and when he enquired, no correct information given. Therefore, it amounts to negligence and deficiency in service by Opposite party. On account of cutting of supply of electricity to the house of the Complainant, he suffered inconvenience during the period of examination of his children and rearing silk worms in the house. On these grounds, he has sought for compensation. 3. The Opposite party served with notice and on behalf of the 1st Opposite party has filed version. Denying the allegations made in the complaint, it is pleaded by the Opposite party that Complainant had taken power supply to his house in M.H.14, in single meter and from the said meter his cousin brothers by name Mahesha S/o Kullegowda and Appajigowda S/o late Anegowda and Nagaraju S/o Appajigowda who are residing in the same house have illegally drawn power supply without sanction from the Opposite parties. The Opposite party has provided 240 watts to the house of Complainant, but the Complainant and his cousins family drawn power and it is noticed by the vigilance squad of CESCOM, who visited the house on 27.12.2006 and found that the Complainant and his cousins have unauthorisedly drawn electricity supply and tampered the meter, committed electricity theft, hence vigilance squad seized the meter and disconnected power supply and filed Crime No.294/2006 against the cousins of the Complainant and the case is not decided. The Complainant again taken new power supply with meter No.6829 on 16.05.2008 from 1st Opposite party and for using of the electricity, 1st Opposite party directed the Complainant to settle the arrears bill. The Complainant has not paid the arrears so for. The 1st Opposite party has not disconnected the power supply on 02.12.2008 as alleged by the Complainant. To harass the Opposite parties and to avoid payment of arrears, the Complainant suppressed true facts and filed the frivolous complaint. The demand collection transaction report reveals that since 16.05.2008 up to 04.02.2009, the Complainant used the electricity and shown the reading and so there is no question of disconnection of power supply on 02.12.2008. Even after that date, the reading and amount shown in the extract, shows the use of power. The Opposite party has not committed any dereliction of duty nor committed any deficiency in service and not caused any inconvenience for his children education and for rearing silk worms as alleged in the complaint, they are concocted. The Complainant is not entitled to any compensation. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. During trial, the Complainant has filed affidavit and produced the documents Ex.C.1 & C.2. The 1st Opposite party has filed affidavit and produced the documents E.R.1 to R.5. 5. We have heard the both sides and perused the records. 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the Opposite parties have committed deficiency in service in disconnecting the electricity supply to the house of the Complainant? 2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the compensation sought for? 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 8. POINTS NO.1 & 2:- The undisputed facts are that the Complainant is the consumer of the Opposite parties having obtained electricity supply from 15.05.2008 in R.R.No.MRL.6829. According to the Complainant, though he was not due of any arrears of electricity charges, without intimation to him, the 1st Opposite party has disconnected the electricity supply to the house of the Complainant by taking away the fuse of the meter in the absence of the Complainant and thus caused inconvenience to the education of the children and rearing of silk worms in his house and thus committed deficiency in service. But, the contention of the Opposite party is that since, the Opposite party Company has filed Criminal case against the cousin brothers of Complainant for tampering of meter and theft of electricity by unauthorised connection and disconnected electricity supply by seizing the meter and thereafter, the Complainant obtained power supply on 16.05.2008 and the Complainant has not paid the arrears so for. The Opposite party has produced Ex.R.1, the copy of the complaint and Ex.R.2 FIR and Ex.R.3 mahazar against the Mahesh, Appajigowda and Nagaraju who are the cousin brothers of the Complainant. But, the meter reading of the Complainant does not reveal that the electricity supply was in the name of the Complainant with meter No.M.H.14. According to the Ex.R.1, the M.H.14 electricity was in the name of Mahesh, so there is no justification in the contention that M.H.14 installation was in the name of the Complainant and from that electric supply, the cousins of the Complainant were unauthorisedly using the electric supply and due to filing of the criminal case, the Complainant has filed this frivolous complaint, so Ex.R.1 to R.3 has no connection with the Complainant. 9. Now, we have to consider whether the Complainant being the consumer of Opposite parties having electric connection bearing R.R.No.MRL.6829 was in arrears of electricity charges and whether the Opposite party has disconnected the electricity supply without justification. The Complainant has produced Ex.C.1 the transaction report issued by the Opposite party to show the use of electricity supply and the electricity charges. As per this report, from May 2008 and June, he was due and later he has paid the charges on 20.06.2008 and in fact, he has paid excess of Rs.20/- and it was adjusted for the bill of July 2008. Then for the month of August, September and October 2008, totally the Complainant was due of Rs.232/- upto November Rs.276/- and he has paid Rs.275/- on 10.11.2008. In the month December 2008, January 2009 and February 2009, there was no consumption, but minimum charges was levied and he was due of Rs.36/- for 3 months as on 04.02.2009. Further, the Complainant has produced Ex.C.2 electric bill issued by Opposite parties and as per this document, it was issued on 3rd February 2009 and the previous meter reading was 136 and present reading also 136 and there was no consumption of electricity and the reading status is shown as disconnected, bill amount is only Rs.36/- and disconnected date is 03.03.2009. 10. According to the Complainant, on 02.12.2008 the electricity was disconnected. As per the evidence of the Complainant, in July 2009 electricity was restored. The Complainant has not produced any document to show when the electricity was restored. The Opposite party has produced Ex.R.4 showing that M.H.14 electric supply installation is in the name Patel Annegowda from 14.01.1940 and the arrears of electricity charges is Rs.6,207/-. But, Ex.R.5 the transaction report i.e., electric charges bill shows that arrears of electricity charges up to 09.09.2006. The consumer Annegowda under M.H.14 installation is the father of Appajigowda against whom the squad of the CESCOM has filed criminal case for theft of electricity supply for tampering the meter and there is no connection between the Complainant and that electric connection. 11. Though, it is contended that the electricity supply was not at all disconnected to the house of the Complainant bearing R.R.No.6829, but the document Ex.C.2 which is not disputed by the Opposite party clearly established that from 03.03.2009 electricity was disconnected. Though, the Complainant contended that from 02.12.2008 electricity was disconnected by 1st Opposite party and so there was no consumption of electricity as nil reading is shown in the bill of December, January and February as per Ex.C.1, but in the bill of September 2008 there was no use of electricity and there was zero reading. Even in the month of November, there was no use of electricity, because on 3rd December 2008 meter reading was zero. So it cannot be accepted that due to disconnect of electricity supply on 02.12.2008 the meter reading was zero in the month of December, January and February. As per the Ex.C.1 & C.2, the Complainant has not paid minimum charges of Rs.12/- for 3 months continuously. Therefore, on 03.03.2009 the electricity was disconnected. There is no dispute that if a consumer does not pay the electricity charges within 15 days from the date of bill, the Opposite parties have powers to disconnect the electricity supply for non-payment of electric charges. So, when it is proved by Ex.C.1 and C.2 that when the Complainant was due of 3 months electric charges from December to February, we cannot attribute any negligence or misuse of power in disconnecting electricity supply on 03.03.2009. Therefore, the Complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service by 1st & 2nd Opposite party. 12. In view of our above finding, the Complainant is not entitled to compensation sought for. 13. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 30th day of June 2010). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
