BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED: 25.08.2023

PRESENT

Mr.K.B SANGANNANAVAR  :       JUDICIAL MEMBER

APPEAL NOs. 1267 & 1268 OF 2019

COMMON ORDER IN THESE APPEALS

BY SRI.K.B SANGANNANAVAR, PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE (R)-JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

01.   The above appeals are filed by Appellants/OP No.1 in C.C. No.27/2017 and 33/2017 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chitradurga, arising out of the order dated 31.07.2018.

02.   The parties in these Appeals will be referred to their rank assigned to them by the Forum below.

03.   The commission examined   the impugned orders, grounds of Appeals and Appeal papers.  Further heard learned counsels.

04.   In these appeals almost facts are similar as such are taken together for consideration to decide on the impugned order whether such orders are sustainable in law before the Commissions under consumer laws.

05.   It  was the case of respective complainant before the Forum below that, opposite parties   invited applications for Solar Roof Top Systems to generate electric energy and in pursuance they have applied for it on 15.03.2016 and on 18.03.2016 paying Rs.2,000/- towards registration charges and Rs.5,000/- towards facilitation charges. The Ops have received and accepted their applications, entered in to an agreement as per the terms and conditions of Karnataka Electricity Regulation Commission order dated: 10.10.2013.

06.   It was their case that, they were granted with 1000 KWP capacity which were to operate and supply the solar electricity power to the opposite parties, since the opposite parties had agreed to purchase the energy at the rate of 9.56 per Kwh. 

07.   The complainant in C.C. No.27/2017 is the owner of the land measuring 07 acres 31 guntas, situated at Renukapura Village, Challakere Taluk, while the complainant in C.C. No.33/2017 is the owner of land measuring 04 acre 31 guntas situated at Renukapara Village, Challakere Taluk.  According to these complainant, as opposite party No.4 wrote a letter dated: 20.08.2016, stating that as these complainants addressed a letter seeking withdrawal of their applications, which is denied and contended that, they have already put up construction of building at the cost of Rs.5, 00,000/- each as such on failure to adhere the terms of agreement on false letter are now suffering huge loss. The commission and omissions on the part of Ops amounts to rendering deficiency of services and is also unfair trade practice. In such circumstances respective complainant have raised consumer complaint against opposite parties seeking compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- each along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

08.   The opposite parties have contested the complaints and the Forum below proceeds to hold enquiries. During the course of enquiry received  affidavit evidence and documents and after closure of enquiry proceed to  allow  the complaints in part and directed the  opposite parties to return the registration fee of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.5,000/- facilitation charges paid by respective complainant and further directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- towards loss of income arising from the land and loss of income for non-supplying of the energy   as per the agreement along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of agreement and further awarded Rs.1,00,000/- each towards compensation payable awarding cost of litigation at Rs.10,000/-. Aggrieved by   these orders, Appeals are filed by the opposite parties contending that, respective complainant are not fall   within the definition of consumer as defined under section 2(1)(d) and would submit that in their complaint itself have stated opposite parties agreed to purchase the energy at the rate of Rs.9.56 per KWh was not considered by the forum below.

09.   Further  learned counsel would submit that, in view of section 86(1)(f) of Electricity Act 2003, jurisdiction of Consumer commission is ousted and submits that KER 2003 is a special enactment dealing with these issues was also not properly appreciated by the Forum below. 

10.   If we examine impugned orders, could see Exhibit P.1 to P.8 were placed on record and on the contrary the Ops have contended that the complainant in each of the cases do not fall within the definition of the consumer as defined under CPA 1986, yet failed to   formulated a point on such vital aspect of the case and further forum below failed to examine whether such complaint with such averments is maintainable under the Act before the consumer commissions. The forum below formulated a point which in fact to be decides after recording finding on the point of maintainability. It is thus  in the opinion of the commission, learned counsel for the Appellant is right in contending that, Forum below misconceived the facts and to find support such contention has  brought to the notice  that, in the impugned order Forum below recorded,   opposite parties have agreed to supply 1000 KWP capacity SRTPV to the complainant.  Let us come to examine the impugned order wherein could see while narrating the brief case of the complaint averments in para 02 recorded, the complainant had entered in to agreement with the OP NO.4 and are intended to purchase the energy at the rate of 9.56KWh. If this has to be accepting as it is definitely the complaint raised by the respective complainant before the consumer commission has to be held wrongly entertained by the forum below and the forum below has to be held committed grave error in passing award in favour of the complainants only on misconceived facts by ignoring laws.

11.   It is also found from the impugned orders that if really the complainant wants to install 1000KWP capacity of SRTPV System, they should have one lakh Sq Ft roof top. The complainant never converted their lands was not at all considered. Further forum below failed to consider that the respective complainant did not fall within the definition of S.2 (d) (i) of CPA 1986, since under agreement they have to supply energy to the Ops and is a commercial trading activity. It is also found from the enquiry that these complainants never put up any type of RCC building in their lands. In such circumstances holding Ops rendered deficiency of service has to be held not sustainable in law. It is not that the forum to blindly receive and accept the case rose before it and awards some amount, since commission is a legal authority. In other words is a Tribunal, yet the forum below failed to apply its mind to appreciate not only the facts but the consumer laws besides the Electrify Act as stated in the version submitted by the Ops. Now a question comes before this commission, as to how the complaint of complainants have to be get redressed. In this regard this commission is of the view definitely not under the consumer laws before the forums or the commissions as the case may be but before some where else which has to be find out by the parties to the complaints. It is also the duty of the Ops to find our solutions, since they are also the public servants of a subsidiary companies of the State and they have to safe guard the best interest of the complainants, since they have invested some money pursuant to their registration with the Ops. In other words instead to drive these complainants to yet another legal authority have to find out a solution to give a full stop to their grievances.

12. In view of the above discussions and observations, this commission is of the view that the impugned orders passed by the forum below are not sustainable as they are contrary to the facts and law,   are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, set aside the impugned orders dated: 31.07.2019 passed in C.C. Nos.27/2017 & 33/2017 respectively on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chitradurga and as a result dismissed the CC No.27/2017 & 33/2017 with no order as to costs.  

13.   The amount in deposit is directed to be refund to the Appellant with proper identification by their advocate.

14.   The original of this order shall be keep in Appeal No.1267/2019 and a certified copy thereof shall be kept in Appeal No.1268/2019 for reference in order to complete the said case record.

15.   Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as to the district commission.

                                JUDICIAL MEMBER

Knmp*