KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.608/2018

JUDGEMENT DATED: 27.11.2023

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.122/2012 DCDRC, Thrissur)

PRESENT:

APPELLANTS:

(by Adv. B. Sakthidharan Nair)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

(by Adv. R.S. Kalkura)

JUDGEMENT

SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER

          This is an appeal filed under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the opposite parties in C.C.No.122/2012 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (the District Commission for short).  As per the order dated 29.06.2018, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand) as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) as costs of the complaint.  They were further directed to adjust this amount to the future bills of the complainant from July 2018 to December 2018.

          2.       The brief   details of the complaint are as follows:-

The complaint pertains to the inordinate delay in the installation of a transformer in the premises of the complainant. The complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and the electric connection was given to his building constructed for his livelihood by means of self-employment.   An amount of
Rs.2,40,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Thousand) was paid on 29.01.2011 for installing the transformer for giving electricity to the building.  There was inordinate delay in the installation of the transformer which was charged only on 06.02.2012.  Because of the delay in the installation of the transformer the complainant had to face lot of difficulties and suffered monetary loss.  Hence, he filed the complaint claiming compensation for deficiency   in service. 

          3.       The opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version. Their contention was that the complaint is not maintainable   as the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The building owned by the complainant is a three storeyed building having several rooms and he gets huge amount as rental income.  As it is used for commercial purpose he cannot file a complaint before the Consumer forum.  Considering that it was a big building having many connections it was proposed to install a 100 KVA transformer in the   premises.  It was agreed by the complainant and accordingly necessary sanction was obtained from the higher authorities.  However, one of the tenants of the complainant objected to the installation of the transformer in front of his shop.  He filed a civil suit also before the Munsiff   Court, Chavakkadu.  The delay was only because of the delay in finalising the location for installation of the transformer.  There was no intentional delay on the part of the opposite parties.  There is no deficiency in service on their part and hence they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.       The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of the complainant as PW1 and Exhibits P1 to P3 were marked on his side.  RW1 was examined on the side of opposite party and Exhibits R1 to R4 were marked on their side.  On the basis of the evidence adduced, the District Commission passed the impugned order.  Aggrieved by the said order the opposite parties have filed this appeal.

          5.       Heard both sides and perused the records. 

          The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent was not a consumer coming within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since the electric connection was availed for a commercial building rented out to tenants for earning profit. The appellants were ready to install the transformer and the respondent was informed to get a suitable space for installation of the transformer. Sufficient space was not there in the premises of the respondent. The space suggested by the respondent/complainant was not technically feasible. The delay in installing the transformer was because of the objections raised by the tenant of the complainant himself.  The tenant who was running a jewellery shop in the building filed a civil suit before the Munsiff’s Court against the appellants and the respondent. The delay caused mainly due to the disputes between the respondent and the tenants in the building.

6.       In the meantime, the respondent submitted a complaint to the Deputy Chief Engineer, KSEB, regarding the delay in installing the transformer.  As directed by him, higher officials of KSEB inspected the premises and as per their instructions transformer was erected on the side of PWD road, and was charged on 06.02.2012. There was no intentional delay on the part of the appellants. The respondent has not suffered any loss due to the delay in installing the transformer. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the appellants and hence they prayed for allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the District Commission.

7.       The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the building was constructed exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. His only source of income is the collection of rent from the shop rooms. He is a consumer within the purview of Consumer Protection Act and hence the complaint is maintainable.  

8.       The respondent initially paid an amount of Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) on 13.06.2010 and thereafter an estimate for installation of the transformer was prepared by the appellants on 04.08.2010.  As advised by KSEB officials he remitted Rs.2.40,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Thousand) on 29.01.2011.  As no concrete action was taken for installation of the transformer for nearly a year, a lawyer notice was sent on 23.01.2012 and thereafter, the transformer was installed on 06.02.2012. It is true that one of the tenants filed O.S.No.845/11on 10.08.2011. But the amount for the installation of the transformer was paid way back on 29.01.2011.   There was no prohibitory order in the said case and so the delay cannot be related to this case.    Moreover, the case was withdrawn subsequently. Existence of the case was not a reason for the delay in installation of the transformer as there was no stay from the court. The transformer was installed after elapse of more than one year after making the payment.  The matter could have been sorted out by the appellants earlier. The respondent submitted that the inordinate delay was caused only because of the wilful negligence and irresponsible act committed by the appellants, which caused unnecessary mental agony and monetary loss to the complainant.    The delay was only because of their inaction and hence   he prayed for dismissing the appeal.

          9.       We have considered the submissions on both sides and examined the records.  It is admitted that the respondent is a consumer of the appellants and that a 100 KVA transformer was proposed to be installed in his premises. The respondent remitted Rs.2,40,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Thousand) on      29.01.2011 for installation of the transformer as evidenced by Exhibit P3.  But the transformer was installed by the appellants only on 06.02.2012, i.e. after more than a year.  The main points in this case is whether the complaint is maintainable and also whether the appellants/opposite parties alone are responsible for the delay in installation of the transformer. 

10.     The appellants contended that the respondent cannot be considered as a self-employed person as he has rented out the rooms in the building and earning substantial amount as rental income. He is not a consumer coming within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The respondent argued that the rooms in the building were given on rent exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment. Use of the rooms by the tenants for commercial purpose is altogether is a different issue.

11.     Considering that the rental income is the source of income for the livelihood of the respondent/complainant, we concur with the view of the District commission that the respondent/complainant is a consumer who is coming within the purview of the Act.

12.     The appellants proposed to install 100 KVA transformer in the premises of the respondent under OYEC scheme for smooth supply of electricity to the building, which is having a total area of 866 Sq.Mtr. Administrative sanction was obtained as early on 04.08.2010.  As advised by the appellants, Rs.2,40,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Thousand) was deposited by the respondent on 29.01.2011.  The contention of the appellants is that there was objection from a tenant   regarding the installation of the transformer in front of his shop which is the cause of delay in the installation of the transformer.  The tenant filed a suit O.S.No.845/2011 before the Munsiff Court, Chavakkad.  Exhibit R1 is the copy of the plaint in O.S.No.845/11. The prayer in the suit was for restraining the appellants from erecting the transformer before the jewellery shop of the tenant. However, there was no injunction from the Munsiff court against erection of the transformer.  Moreover, this case was filed several months after collection of full amount. The argument of the appellants that the case before the Munsiff court was the reason for the delay is not tenable as the case was filed only on 10.08.2011 and there was no interim order prohibiting the installation.

13.     Appellants collected full amount in advance before feasibility is ascertained and the location is fixed. Amount of Rs.2.40,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Thousand) was deposited on 29.01.2011. Transformer was installed and charged only on 06.02.2012, after more than a year. Ultimately, the transformer was erected on the PWD roadside, which could have been done much earlier.   Delay of more than a year is beyond reasonable time. This proves that there was clear laxity on the part of the appellants and they could not properly explain the inordinate delay in installation of the transformer. We concur with the finding of the District Commission that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellants/opposite parties. For the foregoing reasons, we find no grounds to interfere with the order of the District Commission as sought for by the appellant.

          In the result the appeal is dismissed and the order dated 29.06.2018 in C.C.No.122/2012 of the District Commission, Thrissur is confirmed.  There shall be no order as to costs. 

SL