KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 66/2016

JUDGMENT DATED: 05.11.2018

(Against the order in C.C. 514/2009 of CDRF, Thrissur)

PRESENT : 

SRI. T.S.P MOOSATH                                                          : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RANJIT. R                                                           : MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                       : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

Manager, Punjab National Bank, Pudukkad Branch, Thrissur.

 (By Adv. P. Balakrishnan)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Kunjumol, D/o Varghese, Chirayath, Thrissurkkaran House, Talore, Thrikkur, Mukundapuram Taluk.

2. KSEB, represented by Secretary, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram.

3. Assistant Engineer, KSEB Ollur Section Office, Ollur.

JUDGMENT

SRI. T.S.P MOOSATH: JUDICIAL MEMBER

The 3^rd opposite party in C.C. No. 514/2009 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur, in short the district forum, has filed this appeal against the Order passed by the forum by which opposite parties 1 & 2 are directed to reinstate the power supply disconnected by them, to the complainant and not to disconnect the connection until they are legally evicted from the building in dispute.  The appellant/3^rd opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 5000/- as compensation to the complainant. 

2.  The averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainant are, in brief, as follows:  Complainant is residing along with her sister who is mentally retarded in the disputed building which was obtained by them as per partition deed No. 4366/98 of Nellai SRO.  Electric connection was taken to the building by the grandfather of the complainant, T.D. Chacko and it is used by the complainant and her sister as beneficiary of her grandfather and the complainant was paying the electricity charges promptly.  On 17.07.2009 the 2^nd opposite party without giving any prior notice, disconnected the electric connection provided to the building.  The 3^rd opposite party bank has filed a civil suit against the father of the complainant and based on that decree the 3^rd opposite party has auctioned the property and as per their direction the 2^nd opposite party has disconnected the electric connection provided to the building.  The whereabouts of the father of the complainant is not known for more than 10 years.  In the case filed by the 3^rd opposite party the complainant and her sister were not made as parties.  They had taken execution proceedings without complying the legal formalities.  Challenging that, the complainant had filed a civil suit before the Sub Court, Irinjalakkuda and that is pending.  By disconnecting the power supply by the opposite parties 1 & 2, without giving notice to the complainant and her sister who were beneficiaries of the electric connection, the opposite parties have committed illegal acts and it caused severe mental agony and hardship to the complainant and her sister. There was deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 & 2 and the opposite 1 & 2 disconnected the electric supply as per the direction of the 3^rd opposite party.  

3.  Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed version raising the following contentions.  Complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties.  The electric connection was provided to the building in the name of consumer T.D Chacko and he is no more.  On the basis of the application filed by the 3^rd opposite party for changing the ownership with all necessary documents the ownership was changed on 26.06.2009.  Subsequently the 3^rd opposite party submitted an application for disconnecting the connection and thus the connection was disconnected on 17.07.2009. The 3^rd opposite party filed version raising the following contentions. The complaint is not maintainable.  The complainant is not a consumer and there is no consumer relationship between the complainant and 3^rd opposite party.  The property and the building in which the complainant is residing was mortgaged by the actual owners of that property and availed loan from the 3^rd opposite party bank.  The 3^rd opposite party had filed a suit against him and it was decreed in their favour.  In execution proceedings the 3^rd opposite party obtained the property and building in the auction.  The property and building are in the absolute ownership and possession of the 3^rd opposite party and the complainant or any other person has not got any right in the property and the building.  The complainant is residing in the building without the permission of the 3^rd opposite party.  The 3^rd opposite party has taken legal proceedings against the complainant for evicting her from the building.  The complainant has no right for getting the disconnected connection restored and if it is allowed it will cause irreparable injury and hardship to the 3^rd opposite party.  Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. 

4.  Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P7 were marked on her side.  No oral evidence was adduced by the opposite parties and Exts. R1 to R14 series were marked on the side of the opposite parties.  Considering the evidence adduced by both parties and hearing both sides the forum has passed the impugned order.  Aggrieved by the order passed by the district forum the 3^rd opposite party has preferred this appeal.

5.  Heard both sides and perused the records. 

6.  According to the complainant she is residing along with her sister who is mentally retarded in the disputed building.  Complaint is filed against the illegal disconnection of electric connection which was used by the complainant.  The electric connection was taken by the grandfather of the complainant T.D. Chacko who is no more.  According to the complainant herself and her sister were using electric connection and they are the beneficiaries of the electric supply.  It is alleged by the complainant that on 17.07.2009 the opposite parties 1 & 2 disconnected the electric connection which was provided to the building without giving prior notice and it was done on the instruction of the 3^rd opposite party who obtained a decree with respect to the property and the building.  It is stated by the complainant that the 3^rd opposite party had not made her and her sister as parties in the civil case filed by them against her father and they had taken execution proceedings illegally and she had filed a case to set aside the decree before the Sub Court Irinjalakkuda.  It is contended by the opposite parties 1 & 2 that electric connection was in the name of T.D. Chacko who is no more.  The 3^rd opposite party applied for change of ownership of the connection with necessary documents showing title and possession over the property and building and on that basis the ownership was changed in the name of the 3^rd opposite party on 26.06.2009.  Subsequently 3^rd opposite party submitted an application for disconnecting the connection and on the basis of that application the connection was disconnected.  3^rd opposite party contended that the complainant is not a consumer of the electric connection and they have obtained right over the property and building in the execution proceedings of the case filed by them against the father of the complainant and after that on their application the ownership of the connection was changed into their name.  The complainant and her sister have no right over the property and building and they are residing in the building without the permission of the 3^rd opposite party and they are not entitled to get reconnection of the electric supply which was already disconnected.

7.  There is no dispute to the fact that 3^rd opposite party has filed a suit as OS 33/97 before the Sub Court Irinjalakkuda and obtained decree in their favour.  In execution proceedings of the decree they obtained the property and building in the auction conducted by the court on 22.01.2002.  The sale was confirmed in their favour on 12.09.2002.  Thereafter the property was taken possession and delivered to the 3^rd opposite party bank through the Amin deputed from the court on 23.03.2004.  Except a small portion of the residential building occupied by the complainant and her sister the entire property has been actually delivered to the bank.  With respect to the portion of the building occupied by the complainant and her sister also symbolic delivery was effected.  Ext. R7 is the copy of the Sale Certificate issued in favour of 3^rd opposite party from the Sub Court Irinjalakkuda.  Ext. R11 is the copy of the report submitted by the Amin before the Sub Court Irinjalakkuda regarding delivery of the property and the building in favour of 3^rd opposite party.  So admittedly 3^rd opposite party is the owner of the property and building and they obtained possession of the property and building except the portion of the building wherein complainant is residing.  Regarding that portion also symbolic delivey was effected.  Ext. R8 shows that the complainant has filed writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court and by Ext. R10 judgment the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the writ petition without prejudice to the right of the petitioner/complainant to approach the respondents 1 & 2/ 3^rd opposite party seeking re-conveyance of the property on payment of reasonable sum, proportionate to the amount for which the property was sold in execution along with interest or expenses whatever incurred by the bank.  It is stated that it is for authorities of the bank to take a decision if any such offer is made by the petitioner/complainant.  Exts. R3, R4 and R5 show that the change of ownership and possession of the property and building in favour of the 3^rd opposite party bank was effected in the revenue records.  Exts. R1 & R2 shows that the 3^rd opposite party has filed application before the opposite parties 1 & 2 to change the ownership of the electric connection provided to the building where the complainant was residing along with necessary documents.  Ext. R6 shows that the authorized officer of the 3^rd opposite party had executed indemnity bond in favour of the opposite parties 1 & 2.  It is stated by the opposite parties 1 & 2 that the ownership of the connection was changed in the name of 3^rd opposite party on 26.06.2009.  Ext. R14 series shows that the 3^rd opposite party has paid the electricity charges with respect to the said electric connection provided in the building.  The electric connection was disconnected on the basis of Ext. R9 application submitted by the 3^rd opposite party before the opposite parties 1 & 2.  So from the documents produced by the parties it can be seen that the ownership of electric connection No. 1909 provided to the building where the complainant was residing was changed in the name of the 3^rd opposite party by the opposite parties 1 & 2 with effect from 26.06.2009 since they have produced necessary documents showing title and possession over the building and property.  The complaint was filed on 22.07.2009.  So at the time of filing of the complaint, complainant was not a consumer of the electric connection No. 1909 provided to the building and she is not a beneficiary of the electric connection.  The electric connection provided to the building was in the name of the 3^rd opposite party.  So the finding of the district forum that the complainant is a beneficiary of the electric connection and there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is baseless.  Since the complainant was not a consumer or beneficiary of electric connection provided to the disputed building she is not entitled to get an order to reconnect the electric supply which was disconnected.  Since 3^rd opposite party is the consumer of the electric connection it is for them to file application to disconnect or reconnect.  So the order passed by the district forum, directing the opposite parties 1 & 2 to reinstate the power supply disconnected by them and directing the 3^rd opposite party to pay Rs. 5000/- as compensation to the complainant is not sustainable and hence the Order is to be set aside and the appeal is to be allowed. 

8.  It is stated by the complainant that the 3^rd opposite party has no right to obtain the property which belongs to her and her sister and they have taken steps to set aside the sale and further proceedings before the Sub Court, Irinjalakkuda.  That is a matter to be decided by that court.  In that proceedings the complainant can challenge the disconnection of electric supply provided to the building by opposite parties 1 & 2 as per the request of the 3^rd opposite party. As matters stand now, at the time of filing of the complaint, the complainant was not a consumer or beneficiary of the electric connection supplied to the disputed building and the said electric connection was in the name of the 3^rd opposite party.  So the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for and hence the Order passed by the district forum is to be set aside.

9.  In the result, appeal is allowed and the Order passed by the district forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.  Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

T.S.P MOOSATH     :  JUDICIAL MEMBER

RANJIT. R    : MEMBER

jb                                                                                                                                                             BEENA KUMARY. A  : MEMBER