Kerala

Idukki

CC/163/2019

Mary Sevanmala - Complainant(s)

Versus

kannan devan Hills plantation com ltd - Opp.Party(s)

25 Jul 2023

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 19.9.2019

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the     26^th    day of   July,  2023

Present :

                   SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR                  PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P.                             MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S.                           MEMBER

CC NO.163/2019

     Between

Complainant                                       :        Mary,

                                                                   Sevenmala Nagarmudi Factory Division,

                                                                   Lakshmi Estate,

Munnar P.O.

(By Adv: Lissy M.M.)

        And

Opposite Party                                    :        The Manager,

                                                                   Kannan Devan Hills Plantations

Company Pvt. Ltd.,

                                                                   Nagarmudi Factory Division,

                                                                   Lakshmi Estate,

                                                                   Munnar P.O., Pin – 685612.

 

O R D E R

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

1.  This case originates from a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act, for short).  Complainant’s case is briefly discussed hereunder :

 

Complainant has joined as a worker in Sevenmala Estate of KDHP Company, the manager of which is the opposite party here and she was provided with PF No.5218 and new PF No.5766 in connection with her employment.  She is residing in quarters provided by company which bear door numbers XIV/445, XIV/446.  However, complainant is occupying door No.XIV/446 only.  She is using electric connection given to this door number.  But opposite party had billed her for electricity charges for domestic connections 8031 LT, 8032 LT and 8033 LT.  Opposite party is making her pay electricity charges for the said 3 consumer numbers.  Very often, she is not given  receipts for the charges remitted by her.  Unlike ordinary consumers, electricity charges of estate employees are billed by opposite party and they also collect charges  from  employees.  Complainant is only liable to pay electricity charges for door No.XIV/446occupied by her.  Presently, complainant is unemployed and she has no means of livelihood.  This fact is known to opposite party also.  Even now, opposite party is giving bills for 3 domestic connections to complainant.  While complainant was working in the estate of opposite party on 26.11.2005, a telephone post had broken and fallen upon her owing to which she had sustained fracture of her left shoulder bone.  Complainant was taken to Adimali Taluk hospital and from there to several other hospitals and treated.  Subsequently, the fracture had healed and complainant had recovered fully.  But she was given a doctor’s certificate whereby she was certified to do only light work.  Complainant had to undergo treatment for months and was unable to work during her hospitalization.  However, nothing was paid by opposite party as compensation to her.  She was not given insurance money for which she was legally entitled.  Apart from this, quarters occupied by complainant is only one room and kitchen.  Maximum electricity charges for the said quarters would only come to Rs.200/-.  After 2005, opposite parties have realized / extracted sums such as 5000/-, 7000/- from her as electricity charges payable for 3 domestic connections.  Apart from this, she was also asked to pay Rs.9,699/- towards electricity charge arrears and threatened with disconnection, owing to which she had paid this amount also.  By realizing excess electricity charges from complainant, denying her life work and not providing life work to her family members and not paying compensation for injury sustained during the course of her employment, opposite parties have made themselves liable to her.  Complainant, on these premises prays for return of Rs.50,000/- which she claims was realized from her by opposite party towards excess current charges.  She seeks a direction against opposite party to bill her only in accordance with actual power consumption for door No.XIV/446 and also a further direction to give employment to any other member of her family.  Another direction is prayed for against opposite party to pay insurance money due to complainant for injury sustained in the course of employment.  She further prays for Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- towards litigation costs.  24 electricity bill copies were produced by complainant in support of her contentions. 

 

2. Complaint was admitted and upon notice opposite party had entered appearance and filed written version.  Contentions of opposite party is briefly narrated here under :

 

Opposite party submits that reliefs prayed for are not within the jurisdictional limits of this Forum.  Dispute is of a civil nature.  Complaint does not reveal any instances of deficiency of service.

 

Upon facts, it is contended that complainant was working in Lakshmi Estate of the company with PF No.5218.  It is not correct to say that the line unit allotted to complainant had 2 panchayath numbers, i.e., XIV/445 and XIV/446.  She is occupying XIV/446.  This unit has electricity connection and company is supplying electricity to the said unit and others in occupancy by workers.  Consumer number of complainant is 8032.  Electricity charges for power consumption by complainant as per this consumer number is collected from her by issuing regular bills.  It is incorrect to say that electricity charges for 2 line units are being collected from her.  Electricity charges for consumer Nos.8031- LT and 8033- LT are not collected from her.  Only power charges in accordance with the meter installed in her premises is charged and collected.  It is incorrect to say that the opposite party is not issuing receipts for electricity charges paid by complainant.  Complainant is a regular defaulter in payment of electricity bills.  Present balance due from her to the company as on 27.9.2019 is Rs.9,670.20/-.  Every consumer who uses electricity in excess of free 20 units is bound to pay bill amount.  However, complainant is not regular in paying the bill amount.  It is true that on 26.11.2015, complainant had met with an accident in field No.25 at 12.50 pm.  Injury sustained by her is only contusion of left arm.  It is incorrect to say that she had sustained a fracture of her left shoulder bone.  Complainant was taken to estate hospital.  Estate Medical Officer, after examining her, has opined that accident did not warrant any permanent disability.  Complainant was paid half monthly compensation from 26.11.2005 to 5.12.2005 as per provisions of Workmen Compensation Act.  A sum of Rs.349.20/- vide voucher No.2176 dated 15.12.2005 was offered, but complainant had refused to accept the same.  She was sent to the General Hospital, Munnar on the day of accident for surgical evaluation.  X-ray of left arm showed no abnormality and she was treated for contusion of left arm which is only a temporary disability.  Complainant was only entitled for half monthly wages as per rules and she was not liable for any other amount.  Contentions that insurance money was not paid are baseless.  As per company system, company has insured only those workers who are handling mechanical equipments  under group insurance scheme and no other workers are insured.  Complainant has not handled any mechanical equipment and therefore she was not entitled for any insurance benefit owing to the accident.  It is incorrect to say that every employee under the company is insured by it.  Complainant was not covered by any insurance policy of the company.  Her claim for insurance money is unsustainable and baseless.

 

There was no deficiency in service from the side of opposite party.  Complainant was found medically unfit for work and discharged from company service on 27.3.2007 as she was diagnosed with Arthritis.  She has not collected her gratuity from company and has not vacated the line unit.  Gratuity amount of Rs.12,205/- is deposited with the controlling authority.  Eviction petition filed before CIP as EC 39/2009 is pending.  Complainant was a habitual absentee and she has been punished on 3 occasions for the same offence on 22.11.2001, 20.9.2003 and 8.11.2006.  Electricity bill for her unit is being debited by  company.  Facts being so, complaint is to be dismissed with costs of opposite party. 

 

3.  Case was then posted for steps and thereafter for evidence.  Despite availing repeated opportunities, complainant has not appeared or given evidence.  Hence her evidence was closed.  Counsel for opposite party submits that opposite party is not tendering any evidence, since complainant has not given evidence.  Evidence was closed and both sides were heard.  Now the points which arise for consideration are :

1)  Whether complaint is maintainable ?

2)  Whether there was any deficiency in service from the side of opposite party ?

3)  Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for ?

4)  Final order and costs ?

 

4.  Point No.1 :

 

          A reading of complaint itself shows that complainant is a worker of opposite party company.  There is no consumer – service provider relationship between the company and complainant.  Allegations regarding denial of compensation, non-payment of insurance money, non-provision of work for any other member of her family are disputes which are not within the domain of this Forum. These services provided by the company to its employees cannot be considered as services rendered for consideration, as defined under the Act. However, provision of electricity above 20 units is upon payment of electricity charges by occupant of line unit and hence this alone can be considered as service as defined under the Act. Complaint relating to collection of excess electricity charges can be maintained.  Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

 

5.  Point Nos.2 and 3 are considered together :

 

          Instances mentioned in the complaint with regard to realization of excess electricity charges remain as allegations, since no evidence was tendered by complainant.  Non-payment of compensation for accident in the course of employment, non-payment of insurance money for the same, non-provision of employment for any member of complainant’s family, termination her employment, etc. are not with regard to services obtained by complainant for consideration. Further there is no evidence to substantiate these allegations either. Allegations of deficiency in service are not proved.  Therefore, we find that there is no deficiency in service as such from the side of opposite party.  Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the complaint.  Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered accordingly.

 

6.  Point No.4 :

 

          In the result, this complaint is dismissed, considering the circumstances, without costs.  Parties shall take back extra copies, without delay.

 

          Pronounced by this Commission on this the     26^th    day of July, 2023

                                                                                           Sd/-

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT                                          Sd/-

        SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

  Forwarded by Order,                                                                   Sd/-

       SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR