CC Filed on 10.02.2009<br /> Disposed on 29.10.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 29th day of October 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.<br /> <br /> Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.<br /> Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.<br /> ---<br /> <br /> Consumer Complaint No. 11/2009<br /> <br /> Between:<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Sri. M. Raghumurthy,<br /> S/o. Munivenkatappa,<br /> Aged about 45 years.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Smt. N. Geetha,<br /> W/o. M. Raghumurthy,<br /> Aged about 36 years,<br /> Both are residing at <br /> Ullurupete/Ashoka Road,<br /> Siddlaghatta Town,<br /> Chikkaballapur District. <br /> <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. Ravindranatha & others) <br /> <br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Sri. K.S. Krishnappa,<br /> S/o. Late Sathyappa,<br /> Aged 55 years,<br /> Residing at Ullurupete/Ashoka Road, <br /> Siddlaghatta Town,<br /> Chikkaballapur District. <br /> <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. K.V. Shankarappa & others) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Complainants<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele.)<br /> BESCOM,<br /> Siddlaghatta,<br /> Chikkaballapur District.<br /> <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. K.N. Nagaraja & others) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDERS<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite party No.2 not to disconnect electricity supply to meters bearing RR Nos.(1) SDL-20651 (2) SDL-20652 (3) SDL-20653 (4) SDL-20654 of complainants with costs and compensation, etc., <br /> <br /> 2. The material facts of case required for the disposal of present dispute may be stated as follows:<br /> That the complainants claim that they purchased two guntas of land out of Sy. No. 87 of Siddlaghatta Village, Kasaba Hobli, Siddlaghatta Taluk under registered sale deed dated 28.08.2002 for Rs.32,000/- from OP.1, K.S. Krishnappa. The complainants claim that the property purchased by them is bounded as follows:<br /> <br /> East : Property of Kenchappa.<br /> West : Idduluru Road<br /> North : 15 Feet Road<br /> South : Property of Venkateshappa<br /> <br /> The complainants further claim that in the sale deed by mistake the boundaries were not properly shown and they filed Civil Suit O.S. No. 63/2009 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr. DN) & JMFC, Siddlaghatta for rectification of sale deed against OP.1 and another. The complainants further claim that subsequent to the purchase of the property they built a construction having a residential portion and three shops and subsequently they applied for sanction of electricity to residential portion as well as to three shops and OP.2 sanctioned electricity connection on 05.03.2003 and provided RR Nos. SDL-20651, SDL-20652, SDL-20653 and SDL-20654 and that the complainants have been paying the electricity charge in respect of all these meters. Further it is alleged that recently OP.1 raised some objection stating that the property sold to complainants is different from the property which is in actual possession of complainants and made an application before OP.2 for disconnection of electricity supply and that OP.2 has issued notice threatening disconnection of electricity. It is alleged that the claim of OP.1 is not true and he made such claim with a view to harass the complainants. <br /> <br /> 3. OP.1 appeared and contended that the property sold to complainants is a different property and the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed dated 28.08.2002 are correct and the property sold under the said sale deed is still vacant. The sale deed dated 28.08.2002 in favour of complainants contains the following boundaries:<br /> <br /> East : Property belonging to OP.1 Krishnappa<br /> West : Idduluru Road<br /> North : Property of Sonnenahalli Hanumantharappa<br /> South : 15 Feet Road<br /> <br /> It appears OP.1 has contended that he himself put up the construction on the disputed property and the complainants have illegally occupied it without the consent or knowledge of this OP.1. He further contended that at the time of obtaining electricity connection the complainants produced concocted records issued by local authority. Therefore OP.1 claims that the electricity supply cannot be given to the said premises in which complainants are in occupation. <br /> <br /> 4. OP.2 appeared and stated that he has no objection to continue the supply of electricity unless the Civil Court or this Forum gives a direction to the contrary. <br /> <br /> 5. The complainants and OP.1 filed affidavits and documents. We heard the Learned Counsel for parties and perused the records. <br /> <br /> 6. The following points arise for our consideration:<br /> 1. Whether the complainants are entitled to the <br /> relief prayed by them?<br /> <br /> 2. To what order?<br /> <br /> 7. After considering the records and submissions of the parties our findings on the above points are as follows:<br /> <br /> Point No.1: We are not concerned with the title or ownership of the property now in occupation of complainants. Already there is a Civil Suit filed by complainants for rectification of sale deed, for effecting correction of boundaries and for declaration of their title. Looking into the records prima-facie it is made out that the complainants are in occupation of the property which they claim from the date of sale deed and they put up the construction and they obtained electricity connection. Construction licence was obtained by complainants for putting first floor on the existing building. They applied for electricity connection and it was granted on 05.03.2003. Subsequently they are paying electricity charge till now. It appears Sy. No. 87 of Siddlaghatta Village is on the outskirt of Siddlaghatta Town. This Sy. No. measures 1 acre 15 guntas. It appears OP.1 formed sites in this Sy. No. and sold number of sites to different persons. The version of OP.1 implies that complainants are in actual occupation of the disputed property and with concocted documents of local authority the complainants obtained electricity connection illegally. The actual occupation of complainants is from the year 2003. By that time they must have constructed the building. This fact shows that OP.1 did not object for putting a construction on this property at the initial stage. It appears the OP.1 is oftenly visiting this Sy. No. 87 where he has a brick factory. Therefore OP.1 would have come to know the construction activity carried on by complainants on this disputed property. Assuming that the complainants obtained electricity connection by producing incorrect documents issued by local authority, we think till the Civil Court decides the title and possession of the disputed property, the complainants can be allowed to enjoy electricity supply. One cannot deny certain latches on the part of OP.1 from long time and raising the dispute recently. In the above facts and circumstances we think the complainants are entitled to continue the supply of electricity. <br /> <br /> So far as OP.2 is concerned when there is a bonafide dispute between complainants and OP.1 it has to instruct the parties to obtain suitable orders from competent Civil Court and till then it has to continue the supply of electricity which has been given from 2003. OP.2 can refuse supply of electricity if a person is in unauthorized occupation of a premises. When once the electricity connection is given it is presumed that OP.2 has actually verified the occupation of the premises by the applicants. When a dispute is raised as in the present case at a subsequent stage it appears the proper course for OP.2 is to direct the parties to obtain proper order from competent Court and to act accordingly. It appears that OP.2 himself cannot take the burden of deciding such civil disputes when once the connection is given and it remained for a long time. Therefore if OP.2 at this stage disconnects electricity connection on the ground that there is a dispute between complainants and OP.1 regarding title and possession over the premises, it may amount to deficiency in service by OP.2. Hence Point No.1 is held in affirmative.<br /> <br /> Point No.2: Hence we pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed. The parties shall bear their own costs. OP.2 is directed not to disconnect electricity supply to RR Nos. SDL-20651, SDL-20652, SDL-20653 and SDL-20654 till the decision of Civil Court to that effect.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 29th day of October 2009.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />