BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE
Dated this the 20th January 2017
PRESENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDERS IN
C.C. No. 90/2013
(Admitted on 19.03.2013)
Mr. Abbas,
S/o. Hammad Hajee,
“Rifayi Mahal”,
Ilanthila Village & Post,
Belthangady Taluk.
….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri GSKG)
VERSUS
The Assistant Executive Engineer,
(Elect) O & M MESCOM,
Belthangady Sub-Division,
Belthangady, D.K. District 574214
…..........OPPOSITE PARTY
(Advocate for the Opposite Party: Sri MR)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:
I. 1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant against opposite party alleging deficiency in service claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant contend he obtained power connection from opposite party during 2010 and connected 2 K.W with No.K.T.L.106(A) changed to K.T.L.193 now re prescribed under LT7 category was provided on condition of the construction work of house on 15.6.2012. Complainant sought for power connection to his residential house of 5 K.W under LT2(a) Tariff after completing all these formalities in August 2012. The plinth area of complainant’s house is below 500 sq meters at the insistence of opposite party the complainant had put the compound wall by spending Rs.3,00,000/. Opposite party contends the total plinth area is more than 500 sq meters. The old house of complainant as differ in power installation No.BAEH 2142 in and both houses are different separate premises. The opposite party manipulated measurement of house to show the total plinth area is 500 sq ft. Opposite party by pressing into the service the MESCOM Vigilance Squad registered offence No.172/2012 against opposite party on 17.10.2012 allegation theft and demanding back billing charges with penalty of Rs.76,090.56 the complainant by paying 50% of this disputed bill preferred appeal. The opposite party ignored the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (Recovery of Expenditure for Supply of Electricity) Third Amendment Regulations of 2004 Notification No.Y/01/4 on 12.1.2006 of the Karnataka Gazette requires if the requisitioned load is less than 25 KW for a single dwelling house Sub clause 3.1.5. Multi storied building regulation is not applicable. Hence seeks to quash the decision of opposite party of 22.11.2012 and 26.02.2013 and direct to opposite party to give Traiff review Electricity bills issued under LT7 and refund of excess amount collected and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/.
II. Opposite party in the written version claims the complainant approached opposite party for temporary electricity connection to facilitate to construct a new house and accordingly for 28 days one Kilo Watt sanction load power was provided order dated 30.12.2009 for meter bearing No.KTL 106A under tariff LT7 subsequent requirement for extra of temporary power was accorded with 2 Kilo Watt power meter No.KTL193 under LT7 tariff. On completion of the construction of the house though opposite party initially sanctioned for power for permanent supply at the time of service due to confusion in the mind of officers whether Multi Storied Building Rules are applicable or not. The sanction order was withdrawn on clarification on legal department power supply once was sanctioned at present the complainant’s of new house as got permanent electricity supply and serviced through meter KA 81235 with tariff LT2A. When complainant was consuming power on temporary basis there was a surprise inspection conducted by vigilance department on 17.10.2012 and found that the complainant using 6.35 KW of power against sanctioned Load of 2KW and as such the demand notice for back bill charges as mentioned was issued. The allegation of obtaining the complainant to put up compound wall around his house at a cost of 3,00,000/ and that the insisted for single meter connection for new and old house by disconnecting of existing one were denied. The allegation that opposite party made to install of transformer alleging the total plinth area as more that 500 sq meters were also disputed. Hence seeks dismissal.
2. In support of the above complainant Mr. Abbas filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked Ex.C1 to C15 as detailed in the annexure here below. On behalf of the opposite parties Mr. Ramchandra M (RW1) Assistant Executive Engineer (EI) O & M, MESCOM also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on him got marked Ex.R1 to R20 as detailed in the annexure here below.
In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
The learned counsels for both sides filed notes of arguments. We have considered entire case file on record including evidence
tendered by the parties. Our findings on the points are as under
are as follows:
Point No. (i): Negative
Point No. (ii): Negative
Point No. (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. POINTS No. (i): In this case as seen from the opposite party’s written argument stand is that this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute as the complainant had sought to change the Tariff applicable sanctioned by opposite party from one level to another and also the penalty imposed on complainant by the opposite party after the inspection of the MESCOM vigilance squad. In this connection the learned counsel referred to the order in Revision Petition of 165/2002 order dated 27th August 2004 between A.E.E K.P.T.C.L vs. T Shiva Kumar in a matter of similar nature a National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held:
‘The Commission has held in catena of judgement that Section 3 of the CPA does not envisage multiplicity of litigation and does not permit consumer forums to encourage forum hopping of existence of Section 3 of the CPA. It is for the consumer to opt for a certain route of his volition and from there onwards, he is not expected to jump from one forum to another forum which has been done in this case by the respondent/complainant which as per settled law by this Commission is not permitted.’
Reference was also made by the learned counsel for opposite party to a reported judgment of the Apex Court in Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr vs. Ashwani Kumar report 1997(3) Supreme 61S held:
“ELECTRICITY Indian Electricity Act Indian Electricity (Supply) Act Electricity Bill Consumer filed Civil Suit for permanent injunction restraining Electricity Board or its officers from collecting and recovering amount from him Whether Civil Court would be justified in entertaining the suit and Issue injunction as prayed for?(No)Remedy available under the Acts and the Instructions issued by the Board in that behalf from time to time Appropriate competent authority should hear the parties, consider their objections and pass reasoned order Respondent is at liberty to avail remedy of appeal within six weeks He may be given permission to pay the amount in instalments”.
Thus on going through these case we are of the view that this Forum as no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. The remedy of complainant is elsewhere. Hence answer point No.1 in the negative.
POINTS No.(ii): In view of our answer point No.1 negative this point does not survive for consideration. Hence answer point No.2 in the negative.
POINTS No. (iii): Wherefore the following order
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 6 directly dictated by President to computer system to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 20th January 2017)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR) (SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Additional Bench, Mangalore Additional Bench, Mangalore
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 Mr. Abbas
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.C1: 15.06.2012: Copy of application filed by complainant to Opposite party for power supply
Ex.C2: 03.08.2012: Copy of agreement
Ex.C3: 19.07.2012: Copy of work order No.134
Ex.C4: 31.07.2012: Copy of letters of OP informing sanction of 5 KW power under LT2(a) Tariff
Ex.C5: 22.11.2012: Copy of the office memo
Ex.C6: : Copy of measurement details of complainant’s House
Ex.C7: : Copy of actual measurement details
Ex.C8: 4.1.2013/ 5.1.2013 : Copy of back billing notice
Ex.C9: 05.02.2013: Copy of the letters of complainant
Ex.C10: 26.2.2013: Copy of reply letters of the opposite party
Ex.C11:17.4.2013: Office order issued by opposite party
Ex.C12:17.4.2013: Order issued by opposite party to Kalleri Branch
Ex.C13:30.4.2013: Electricity bills issued by opposite party
Ex.C14: : Appeal filed by complainant before Appellate Authority
Ex.C15: : DD in favour of CHESCOM, Mysore.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
RW1 Mr. Ramchandra M, Assistant Executive Engineer (EI) O & M, MESCOM
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Ex.R1: True copy of application submitted by complainant
Ex.R2: True copy of the order passed by the OP
Ex.R3: True copy of the agreement entered between complainant and opposite party
Ex.R4: True copy of wiring completion cum inspection report
Ex.R5: True copy of application submitted by complainant
Ex.R6: True copy of order passed by opposite party
Ex.R7: True copy of agreement entered between complainant and opposite party
Ex.R8: True copy of wiring completion cum inspection report
Ex.R9: True copy of application submitted by complainant
Ex.R10: True copy of order passed by opposite party
Ex.R11: True copy of agreement
Ex.R12: True copy of wiring completion cum inspection report
Ex.R13: True copy of application submitted by complainant
Ex.R14: True copy of order passed by opposite party
Ex.R15: True copy of agreement
Ex.R16: True copy of wiring completion cum inspection report
Ex.R17: Inspection report
Ex.R18: Demand notice
Ex.R19: Letters dated 04.01.2013
Ex.R20: Letters addressed by Assistant Executive Engineer (e) MESCOM, Belthangady to Executive Enbinner (e) MESCOM, Bantwal.
Dated: 20.01.2017 PRESIDENT
