IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 30th day of December, 2020
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No.109/2019 (filed on 09/07/2019)
Petitioner : Sunny Philip,
Edapallil House,
S.H. Mount P.O.
Kottayam – 686 006.
(Adv. Mathew Philip)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) Kerala State Electricity Board,
Rep. by Asst. Executive Engineer,
Electrical Major Section,
Ettumannur
Ettumanoor - 686 631.
(Adv. Deepthy S. Nath)
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Complainant and his wife together holds an extent of 91.23 ares of agricultural land in Peroor village of Kottayam Taluk. There was an agricultural electric connection no 3713 under the opposite party within the compound. When the petitioner purchased the plot in 1993, the said agricultural connection was defunct, damaged by lightening. It was restored by the intervention of the Hon’ble High court of Kerala. In 1999 the opposite party unilaterally increased the connected load of the above connection from 3HP to 5HP.Upon the complaint of the complainant it was reduced to the previous level. The complainant was periodically paying the electric charges of the said connection upon service of the bill. The complainant was working abroad and came to India only during vacations. As he was on vacation for 45 days only he could not concentrate on the agricultural developments in the plot. His residential house is 5km away . In 2019, when the complainant finally returned to India with his family, on termination of their employment they found the electric connection dismantled. One electric post in their compound was removed. On 21.6.19 the complainant visited the office of the opposite party and personally submitted a complaint. The assistant engineer after verification informed that petitioners name could not be traced in their system. He offered a new connection at a cost of around Rs.15,000/-. Aggrieved by this the complainant filed this complaint.
Upon notice the opposite party appeared and filed version. The op contended that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties for the reason that the secretary (Administration), KSEB Ltd is not impleaded in the party array. The opposite party could be represented before any court of law through the said person. On this ground itself the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The connection with consumer no 3713 is not an agricultural connection but a service connection that too in the name of one Naity Kuriakose and was dismantled on request about more than 15 years ago. So the complainant is not a consumer of the op. As the complainant is not a consumer of this opposite party under this consumer no 3713 and there is no service connection agreement executed between the petitioner and KSEB Ltd., for any kind of service, this complainant cannot file any type of complaint before this opposite party as alleged. As this service connection was dismantled more than 15 years ago no current charge were paid as alleged. The complainant has no locus standi for filing such a complaint for the above reasons. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The evidence part consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant along with Exhibits A1 to A4 and proof affidavit and Exhibit B1 from the side of the opposite party.
On a detailed perusal of the complaint, version and evidence, we would like to frame the following issues:
1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether the complainant has succeeded in establishing that there is
deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
3. If so what are the reliefs?
Point No. 1, 2 and 3
The opposite party has raised a contention in their version that the
complainant is not a consumer as there is no electric connection in his name.
the disputed connection was in the name of one Naity Kuriakose. While considering this we went through the judgment of the Hon’ble High court in O.P. No. 10989 of 1997 filed by the complainant herein against different officials of the opposite party herein. The opposite party herein ie. KSEBfiled a counter affidavit before the Hon’ble court in which it is stated that a vigilance enquiry was conducted and a direction was issued to transfer the service connection in the name of the property owner and effect reconnection after realizing the dues. It is also seen that the supply had been reconnected pursuant to the orders issued by the Honb’le court.
As the opposite party filed such a counter affidavit before the Hon’ble high court where there is no mention that the complainant was not a consumer of the opposite party herein. In Exbt.A3,counter affidavit filed before the Honb’le High court, the 3rd respondent who is the opposite party herein had sworn that:
“ 7.The petitioner has registered a service connection under consumer No. 12649 and remitted OYEC amount on 29/04/1997 for construction purpose.
8. A Vigilance Enquiry was conducted and was completed and a direction was received in this office that the service connection may be transferred to the new property owner and to effect re-connection after realizing all dues. Based on this direction this respondent issued a notice to the consumer to apply for transferring the service. The service connection will be restored as soon as document for transferring the ownership is produced. After transferring the ownership, connection can be given to the consumer after production of completion certificate of new installation including motor pump etc through licenced wireman.”
The complainant purchased a landed property in which there was an agriculture electric connection and the ownership of that connection also was transferred to him along with the title of the property. But the op raising lame excuses did not reconnected the same for the said connection was disconnected 15 years ago. The complainant had to approach the Honorable High Court to reinstate the connection. Thus the opposite party herein submitted in Honourable court that a vigilance enquiry was initiated and consequently the electric connection of consumer no 3713 would be transferred to the name of the complainant. Accordingly the Honourable court passed a judgment to consider the connection given as a regular connection for all purposes instead of treating it as a temporary connection. As per the said judgment the opposite party gave a service connection to the complainant. So undisputedly the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party. But now the complainant’s grievance is that the said connection was dismantled by the OP without a proper notice to him.The act of the op is against the provisions of Electricity supply code, and TheElectricity Act,2003.
Electricity supply code Chapter VIII s.138 Ground for disconnection –
- The licensee shall not disconnect the supply of electricity to any consumer except on any one or more of the following grounds:-
- If the consumer defaults in payment of the dues payable to the licensee as per the bill or demand notice or any order issued by a competent authority, within the period stipulated therein;
- If the security provided by the consumer has become insufficient or the consumer fails to provide additional security as required by the licensee;
- If the consumer is found to have indulged in theft of electricity.
- If the failure to disconnect is likely to cause health hazard or safety risk or damage to property or to the consumer or to any other person;
- If the conduct or continuance of any business or industry or activity being carried out in any premises becomes unlawful due to lack of necessary permission from the competent authority or due to withdrawal of such permission by any competent authority;
- If the licensee is mandated to do so by an order of a legal authority, competent to issue such a mandate;
- If the licensee is entitled to do so under an agreement with the consumer;
- If the installation of the consumer does not comply with the applicable rules or any other reasonable requirements stipulated by the licensee;
- If the consumer has contravened the provisions of the Code or of the Act, which entitles the licensee to disconnect the supply;
- If the wiring, apparatus, equipment or installation at the premises of the consumer is found to be defective or unsafe or there is leakage of electricity.
- If the consumer is found to have altered the position of the meter and related apparatus or if the consumer uses any apparatus or appliance other than the one authorized by the licensee;
- If the consumer uses the energy in such a manner as to endanger the service lines, equipment, electric supply mains and other works of the licensee;
- If it is found that energy is being used in any manner which unduly or improperly interferes with the efficient supply of electricity to any other consumer;
- If at any time the consumer is found to be using energy for a purpose other than for which it was intended or provided;
- If the consumer extends or allows supply of electricity to any other premises from his connection without the permission of the licensee.
- If the supply of electricity to the consumer is liable to be disconnected as per any of the provisions in the Code.
and Section 139states that Procedure for disconnection
- The licensee shall, in the case of disconnection proposed on the grounds mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of sub regulation (1) of regulation 138 above, issue a disconnection notice in writing, as per Section 56 of the Act, with a notice period of not less than fifteen clear days, intimating the consumer about the grounds for disconnection and directing him to pay the dues with penal charges within the notice period.
Section 56 of the Electricity Act states that Disconnection of supply in default of payment – (1) Where any person neglects to pay any charge for electricity or any sum other than a charge for electricity due from him to a licensee or the generating company in respect of supply, transmission or distribution or wheeling of electricity to him, the licensee or the generating company may, after giving not less than fifteen clear days’ notice in writing, to such person and without prejudice to his rights to recover such charge or other sum by suit, cut off the supply of electricity and for that purpose cut or disconnect any electric supply line or other works being the property of such licensee or the generating company through which electricity may have been supplied, transmitted, distributed or wheeled and may discontinue the supply until such charge or other sum, together with any expenses incurred by him in cutting off and reconnecting the supply, are paid, but no longer.
Thus as per the legal provisions the opposite party could disconnect the connection only after giving 15 days notice. Here in the case in hand there is no notice seen given to the complainant. Moreover, the op has produced Exhibit B1 in which the connection is shown as dismantled where there in only date of connection is recorded no date of disconnection is recorded. When the Commission directly asked this question to the representing official of opposite party he said there is no document which shows the date of disconnection. We find that this is a serious dereliction of duty and misuse of public exchequer. In the light of above discussion we find that the disconnection and denial of service from the part of the op is a clear deficiency of service on the part of the op and point no 2 and 3 are found accordingly.
In the version filed by the opposite party herein it is averred that there is no service connection given to the complainant. The consumer No.3713 was in the name of one Naity Kuriakose and the said connection was dismanted on request 15 years ago. But the same opposite party filed a counter affidavit before the Hon’ble High Court that as per their vigilance enquiry they had transferred the connection in dispute to the complainant’s name. The Hon’ble High Court based on this submission passed a judgement. Now, the opposite party has sworn before this Commission that there is no connection given to the complainant. The connection No.3713 was never transferred to the complainant’s name. The connection in dispute was given to one Mrs.Naity Kuriakose on 16/01/79 and as she had made default in payment it was dismantled after giving proper notice. The connection was dismantled on 28/05/2008 after deducting all her dues from the deposit amount.
In Ext.B1 produced by the opposite party, the date of disconnection is not mentioned. There is no such averment of specific date of disconnection in the version or Ext.B1.
All these statements of the opposite party are contradictory. Upon their contention, the Hon’ble High Court ordered that the connection should be transferred to the complainant considering this as a regular connection for all purposes accepting any dues. But the opposite party giving least consideration to the Hon’ble High Courts’ judgement and in a gross carelessness has not complied the order. So are the acts done by the opposite party is found as improper. The act of the opposite party of not transferring the connection to the complainant’s name as per the Hon’ble High Court’s order is a deficient act. Moreover, there is no evidence to prove that the opposite party had disconnected the said connection in due process of law. Hence we find that there is gross deficiency on the part of the opposite party.
Hence the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to Restore the electric connection in the property of the complainant to the original condition at free of cost within 30 days and the opposite party is at liberty to collect the dues if any from the complainant as per the provisions of the Electricity act and supply code.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30th day of December, 2020
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits from the side of complainant
A1 : Copy of sale deed
A1 (a) : Copy of receipt dtd.03/06/2019 issued by village field assistant.
A2 : Copy of petition and documents filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala as OP No.10989/1997
A3 : Copy of counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent in OP10989 in the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam.
A4 : Judgement in OP No. 10989 of 1997 G in the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam.
Exhibits from the side of opposite party
B1 : Consumer profile of 3713 (as on 13-08-2020) by the opposite party
By Order
Senior Superintendent
