IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 24th day of August, 2019.
Filed on 01-04-2016
Present
Sri.E.M. Muhammed Ibrahim,B.A,LLM (President)
2. Smt. Sholy P.R, B.A.L,LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.111/2016
between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Sri.Saji.P.John The Assistant Engineer
Principal KSEB Electrical Sub Division
Swagath College Mulakkuzha
Angadikkal P.O.,
Chenganoor Taluk
(By Adv.Joseph George)
O R D E R
SRI.E.M. MUHAMMED IBRAHIM (PRESIDENT-IN-CHARGE)
This case is based on a consumer complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The averments in the complaint in short, are as follows:-
The complainant is the principal of Swagath College. The institution has been running for the last 20 years. The opposite party has given electric connection to the complainant's institution as consumer No.6365, the complainant used to remit the bill amount regularly. However the opposite party disconnected the electric connection by alleging that the bill amount has not been paid within the stipulated period but the opposite party has not complied with statutory formalities before disconnecting the electric connection for which the opposite party has no right and thereby the opposite party committed deficiency in service and the same has caused much mental agony apart from financial loss to the complainant. Though the complainant requested the opposite party to give reconnection, the opposite party has not reconnected by stating lame excuses. Hence the complainant prays to give directions to the opposite party to reconnect the disconnected electric connection to consumer No.6365.
3. The opposite party resisted the complaint by raising the following contentions:-
The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complaint is barred for non jointer of necessary parties. The Secretary KSEB Ltd. is a necessary party to the proceedings. Since KSEB Ltd. represented by secretary is not a party the complaint is liable to dismissed inlimini. The complainant is not the registered owner of the building wherein consumer No.6 563 has been allotted Sri.Varghese Thomas, Sunil Bhavanam, Angadi , Chengannur is the owner of above connection. The request of the original registered owner to change the ownership was not been received till date. The premises of the consumer is a very old shop building and was locked for several years. The local people informed that a tuition centre was functioning in the said shop and the same was in a locked condition for the last 10-15 years. On verification of records relating to consumer No.6563 it is revealed that the premises was locked and no reading was recorded and is stated as D/L (door locked). The premises is under the ownership of Sri.Varghese Thomas.
The consumer was a defaulter for the period from 10/2003 and service connection was dismantled on 04.03.2014 due to non-remittance of current charges. As the premises was locked many years and the consumer was not willing to open the door service connection was dismantled on 04.03.2014 by removing the service wire as per rule in force. Subsequently the account of the consumer was closed after adjusting the cash deposit. The balance dues including the cost of equipments were paid by the consumer on 25.03.2014 and the service connection equipment was terminated. Hence it is clear that the consumer has accepted the dismantled the service connection and he has not approached the opposite party nor made any complaint against the dismantled service connection. The procedural formalities for dismantling service connection were complied within this case. Service was dismantled since the consumer was a defaulter in paying electricity charges. Hence the action of the opposite parties is legal and binding on the consumer. There is no reason to cause any defamation or loss to the consumer or to the complainant. There is no provision for re-connection of the dismantled connection as per provisions of the electricity code. No request for reconnection of service was received from the customer or from the complainant and even if such a request is received the same cannot be entertained as per the provisions of law. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant has mislead the forum by stating that the supply was disconnected. It was actually dismantled on 25.03.2014 and not disconnected. The relationship between the consumer and complainant is not known to the opposite party. The petitioner has no right to make a complaint for reconnection of consumer No.6563 as he has not executed any agreement with KSEB Ltd. However the opposite party has no objection in providing a new electric connection on receiving the formal application with all required documents and remittance of required fee.
4. In view of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get reconnection of the electric supply to consumer No.6563 of Mulakkuzha sub division.
3. Reliefs and costs.
5. The power of attorney holder of complainant has been examined as PW1 No documents have been marked on the side of the complainant. Evidence on the side of the respondent consists of the oral evidence of RW1 and Ext.B1 and Ext.B2 documents. Complainant filed notes of arguments. Heard both sides.
Point No.1 & 2
For avoiding repetition of discussion of materials these 2 points are considered together. The specific case of the complainant is that he is the principal of Swagath College which is a tutorial college and he has been running the above institution for the last 20 years in the disputed premises. However the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence either rent deed, lease deed or sale deed to prove that he has been legally occupying the building as claimed in the complainant. It is an admitted case that the opposite party has given electric connection to the disputed room and the consumer number allotted number is 6365. According to the opposite parties the above room and Electric connection bearing consumer No.6365 was allotted to Sri.Varghese Thomas, Angadi, Chengannur and he is the owner of above connection and no request from the above original owner has been received to change the ownership of the electric connection. The complainant has not produced any documentary evidence as indicated above to prove that the above consumer number has been allotted to him or allotted to the shop room were in he is allege to have been conducting the tutorial college is a rented shop room or he is having any legal right over the shop room and electric connection.
According to the opposite parties the owner of the above building is a chronic defaulter of electric charges and whenever the employees of the opposite party visited the premises was found locked and the fact was reported to the opposite party as door locked hence the electric meter reading could not be taken. Though the complainant would claim that he is in possession and occupation of room were in the above meter has been installed and he has been regularly paying electricity charges and no amount is due. The above allegation is totally denied by the opposite parties but the complainant or his power of attorney who has been examined as PW1 has not produced any bill showing that he has paid the electricity charges and there is no dues. Hence we are not inclined to accept the above case of the complainant as he is the owner / the person who enjoyed the building or portion of the building werein the electric connection was installed. As the owner of the building is a chronic defaulter, the opposite party electricity board is entitled to disconnect and dismantled the electric connection after giving due noticed to parties to pay the electricity charges which is in arrears.
The oral evidence of RW1 coupled that Ext.B1 & Ext.B2 documents would establish that the owner of the electric connection is the Varghese Thomas who is a chronic defaulter and the defaulted amount as on 26.04.2016 was Rs.42,355/- and the other bill amount is Rs.30,000/-. According to RW1 since October 2013 the person in occupation of the building has not been paying electricity charges and hence the opposite parties has given notice on 14.01.2014 directing him to clear the dues within 45 days but in spite of that notice the complainant has not paid the amount due. Hence on 04.03.2014 the electric connection was dismantled from the electric post since the room was locked always. Thereafter the owner of Sri.Varghese Thomas appeared before the opposite party office and paid the arrears and also paid meter charges and other dues on 25.03.2014 and hence the opposite party terminated the agreement executed by the said Varghese Thomas for service connection. As the owner Varghese Thomas has paid the meter charges and the door was found locked always the electric meter and allied equipment’s were removed from the room. RW1 would further sworn that they have dismantled the electric connection after observing the rules and regulations and also giving due notice to the disputed shop room and hence there is no lapse or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Though RW1 was subjected to severe cross examination nothing materials has been brought out to disbelieve the above version of RW1. In view of the above evidence of RW1 and Ext.B1 and Ext.B2 documents there is no merit in the allegation of the complaint that the opposite party electricity board has disconnected the electric connection allotted to the room wherein he was conducting tutorial college. The materials available on record would clearly indicate that the electric connection was not disconnected but dismantled the electric connection at the post as door was locked always when the employees of the opposite party visited the premises and heavy electricity charges was in arrear/ It is also brought out in evidence through RW1 that the complainant is neither the owner nor the person who has been legally occupying the premises and the owner of the premises was not disputed the act of dismantling of electric connection rather he accepted the dismantling of the electric connection by settling the account with the opposite party.
It is further to be pointed out that as the complainant is neither the owner of the building to which electric connection was given nor he is the person who enjoyed the building as per a valid rent lease deed and that there is no material before the forum court to prove that he is the beneficiary of the electric connection. Therefore there is no consumer service provider relationship between the complainant and the opposite party. As there is no consumer service provider relationship between the complainant and the opposite parties the complaint will not be stand on that score also.
On evaluating the entire materials available on record we come to the conclusion that there is no merit in the complaint and the same is only to be dismissed. The points answered accordingly.
Point No.3
In the result the complaint stands dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 24th day of August, 2019.
Sd/-Sri.E.M. Muhammed Ibrahim (President)
Sd/-Smt. Sholy P.R (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Sunil Kumar (Witness)
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Laila N.G (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Photograph
Ext.B2 - Meter reading register
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Sa/-
Compared by:-
