Date of filing : 11-05-2009 Date of order : 31-10-2009 N THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD C.C. 95/09 Dated this, the 31st day of October 2009. PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER M.Jafer, S/o.Muhammad Kunhi, Marthya House, Po. Perla } Complainant (Adv. Manikandhan Nambiar, Kasaragod) 1. Secretary, K.S.E.B, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattam, Thiruvananthpuram. } Opposite parties 2. Assistant Engineer, K.S.E.B, Electrical Section, Badiadka, Peradala.Po. (Adv. P.Raghavan, Kasaragod) O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT Complainant Sri.Jafer filed this complaint against the opposite parties on the ground that they returned his application submitted in early 2009 for a new electric connection to the shop building which belongs to him. According to opposite parties there is no consumer relationship between the complainant and opposite party. No application for electric connection is received from the complainant. Further there is huge arrears pending from the previous owner of the shop. According to opposite party as per the provisions of the Electricity Act no fresh connection can be provided to the premises where previous dues are pending from the previous owner and therefore there is no deficiency in service on their part. 2. Ext.A1 marked on the side of the complainant. Both sides heard. 3. Ext.A1 is a letter issued by opposite party No.1 to the complainant. In Ext.A1 it is stated that the application for the electric connection is returned since there is no provision to give new electric connection to the said shop as there were arrears of electricity charges from the previous owner of the said shop. 4. The contention of the opposite party that the complainant is not a consumer since no application is received by the opposite parties is not sustainable. In Ext.A1 the 2nd opposite party has stated that the application for new electric connection is returned since there were arrears of electricity charges from the previous owner of the shop building. That means the opposite party is ready to provide the connection if the arrears are paid by the complainant. If that be so the complainant would be a ‘potential consumer’ of the opposite parties. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority V. M.K. Gupta reported in III (1993)CPJ I (SC) has held that the word ‘potential’ contained in the definition of ‘service’ in clause (o) of Sec 2 of CP Act has got wide meaning. The ‘service’ which is not only extended to actual users but those who are capable of using it also are covered in the definition. The clause is thus very wide and extends to any or all actual or potential users. 5. Now coming to the merits of the case the contention of the opposite parties is that there were huge dues pending from the previous owner of the shop. But the opposite parties are silent about the details of the dues like the sum, the date from which the amount due, steps taken to recover the dues from the previous owner etc. 6. The learned counsel for the complainant Sri. Manikandhan Nambiar submitted that the opposite party No.1 was not initiated any steps to recover the alleged dues from the previous owner and as per the provisions of the Electricity Supply rules the connection ought to have been disconnected for non-payment of electricity charges and it should have been dismantled after six months after disconnection. If any dues were pending from an electricity consumer. But the opposite parties abandoned the recovery from the previous owner and hence they are not entitled to recover the said dues from the complainant. He relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahamedabad Electricity Co. Ltd v. Gujarat Inns. Pvt. Ltd & Ors reported in 2004 (2) Supreme 580. In that case the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in case of fresh connection though the premises are the same, the auction purchasers cannot be held liable to clear the arrears incurred by the previous owners in respect of power supply to the premises. 7. Relying on the said decision the Hon’ble Jharkand High Court also held that a subsequent owner taking possession of premises in pursuance of a judgment and decree cannot be forced to pay dues of erstwhile owner for new electric connection.(reported in 2002 (1) KLT 5 (SN). 8. The counsel for the complainant submitted that the earlier connection given to one Pilikunhi was disconnected from 19 years back and no steps were initiated by the opposite parties to recover the amount from the said person since there was only a paltry sum of Rs.540/- and therefore it became a time barred debt in view of Sec 56 (2) of Electricity Act 2003 that specifically bars the licensee to recover any dues from any consumer after the period of 2 years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied. 9. Again Regulation 7 of the K.S.E. BOARD Terms & Conditions of Supply 2005 deals with the dues of previous consumers. As per this regulations if a purchaser of a premise requires to have a new connection, as the earlier connection has already been dismantled after disconnection, the arrear, if any, shall be realised from the previous owner/occupier of the premises and not from the purchaser. 10. This being the position the rejection or non-acceptance of the application of the complainant for a new electric connection constitutes not only deficiency in service but it amounts to gross abuse of power also. The servants of the Board are the servants of the people and the use of their power must always be subordinate to their duty of service. A public functionary if he acts maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then it is not an exercise of power but it is abuse and such authorities are liable to pay compensation to the aggrieved who suffered. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Lucknow Development Authority V M.K.Gupta further held ‘ “ Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption thrive and prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it. Therefore, the award of compensation for harassment by public authorities not only compensates the individual, satisfies him personally but help in changing the outlook… One of the reasons for this appears to be development of law which, apart, from other factors succeeded in keeping a salutary check on the functioning in the government or semi government offices by holding the officers personally responsible for their capricious or even ultra vires action resulting in injury or loss to a citizen by awarding damages against them”. 11. As urged by the counsel for the complainant the opposite parties cannot reject or return the application filed by the complainant for power connection since they are the sole licensee in Kerala who is distributing electricity. 12. Considering the above aspects we feel this is a fit case to impose punitive compensation against the opposite parties for causing mental agony and sufferings to the complainant by illegally demanding the dues which are not at all recoverable from him. In the result complaint is allowed and opposite parties are directed to accept the application of the complainant for electricity connection with necessary fees to his shop building situated in RS No.911/2ff and provide him the connection within the time frame stipulated in the Electricity Act and KSEB Terms & Conditions of supply 2005. Opposite parties further directed to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant by way of punitive compensation with a cost of Rs.2500/-. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1.letter sent by opposite party No.2 to complainant. Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.Ramadevi | | 
