BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 10th of January 2011
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : MEMBER
SRI. ARUN KUMAR K. : MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.125/2010
(Admitted on 22.04.2010)
Sri.B.Keshava,
Aged about 70 years,
So. Late I. Birmanna,
Residing at Birmanna Lane,
Bappal, 1 Cross,
Mangalore. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Smt. Manjula N.A.)
VERSUS
1. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
SubDivision I, MESCOM,
Attavar, Mangalore.
2. The Executive Engineer,
MESCOM,
Mangalore Division,
Mangalore. ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the Opposite Parties: Sri.K.Balaraj Rai).
***************
ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The Complainant submits that, to eke out his livelihood, the Complainant constructed the commercial premises after obtaining licence from the local authorities in his own property and door number was assigned. The Complainant obtained electricity through meter No.B-1886A.
It is stated that, apart from the above, the Complainant has obtained 5 HP power for the purpose of running wood workshop, Opposite Party has provided meter No.B-1886. The above electricity meter No.B-1886 is obtained by the Complainant as proprietor of M/s.B.K. Fabrics. It is stated that, the Complainant has been enjoying the electricity through both the aforesaid meters since 1976. The Complainant has been paying the up-to-date electricity bills and there are no arrears of whatsoever. The Complainant submits that, some people who are jealous about the business of the Complainant filed a complaint before the Mangalore City Corporation to cancel the trade licence issued by them. The Commissioner of the Mangalore City Corporation without proper enquiry ordered to cancel the said licence in his order dated 02.09.2004. As against the same, the Complainant has preferred an appeal under Section 444 of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act. The appeal was allowed and the order was cancelled. It is further stated that, the Commissioner of Mangalore City Corporation once again passed an order dated 16.02.2010 in his proceedings No.15273/2001-02. The above said order was not considered by the Appellate Committee. It is stated that, the order of the Commissioner dated 16.02.2010 is illegal and without jurisdiction. There afterwards, the Opposite Parties have sent a letter dated 02.03.2010 as to why the electricity meter should not be disconnected. The Complainant sent a reply inspite of that the Opposite Parties have disconnected the electricity provided to the premises bearing door No.25-23-1386/2. It is stated that, the Opposite Parties have got no right to disconnect the same because there is an agreement between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties. The office lighting which is essential necessity of the Complainant could not be deprived by the same. The lighting is provided to the building not on the basis of trade licence. The trade licence has no nexus to the electricity provided for lightening. Because of the disconnection of the said RR No.B-1886A the Complainant was put to loss and inconvenience. It is stated that, in the absence of trade licence electricity consumed through meter No.B-1886 could not have been disconnected. The Complainant issued a letter dated 03.03.2010 and requested the Opposite Parties not to disconnect the electricity connection, inspite of that they have disconnected the electricity which amounts to deficiency in service and hence the above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Parties to restore the electricity connection of meters RR No.B-1886 and B-1886A immediately and also to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.
2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel filed common version and stated that, the Mangalore City Corporation has ordered to cancel the licence issued to the Complainant to run Power Loom Industry. The City Corporation has ordered disconnection of electricity connection as per order passed in proceedings No.CR 15273/01-02. In compliance of the order passed by the Commissioner of the Mangalore City Corporation, the Opposite Parties have directed to disconnect the electricity connection. The electricity connection was given to the Complainant for Power Loom Industry and not for office lighting and hence the disconnection is in order. And further it is stated that, the Mangalore City Corporation is also necessary party to the above complaint and the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and contended that, as per the order of the Forum on 06.05.2010 the electricity has been re-connected to RR No.B-1886A by the Opposite Party and contended that there is no deficiency and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
4. In support of the complaint, Sri.Keshava (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex C1 to C9 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. One Mr.Abdul Khader (RW1), Assistant Executive Engineer of the Opposite Party No.1 filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex R1 to R4 were marked for the Opposite Party as listed in the annexure. Both parties filed notes of arguments along with citations.
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Negative.
Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
Reasons
5. Point No. (i) to (iii):
The facts which are not in dispute is that, the Complainant constructed the commercial premises after obtaining licence from the local authorities in his property and obtained door No.25-23-1386/2. It is also admitted that, the above said door number provided with electricity connection. The Complainant has been paying up-to-date electricity bills and there are no arrears. It is also admitted that, the Commissioner of Mangalore City Corporation on receipt of complaint from some people ordered to cancel the licence issued to the Complainant in proceedings No.Ma.Na.Pa./15273/ 2001-02 dated 02.09.2004. As against the said order the Complainant has preferred an appeal before the Standing Committee as provided under Section 444 of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act. The appeal was allowed as per the resolution No.226/2004-05 of the Standing Committee. It is further admitted that, the Commissioner of Mangalore City Corporation once again passed an order dated 16.02.2010 in his proceedings No.15273/2001-02 cancelled the licence of the Complainant and also given direction to the Opposite Parties to disconnect the electricity connection given to the Complainant for Power Loom Industry.
Now the point in dispute between the parties before this FORA is that, according to the Complainant, the disconnection of the power connection given to the door No.25-23-1386/2 by the Opposite Party which is arbitrary and the same is not correct, which amounts to deficiency and came up with an interim application and also by filing this complaint before this FORA to restore the power connection permanently. This FORA on hearing the interim application, ordered for restoration of the electricity connection temporarily till the disposal of the complaint.
Now the point for consideration is that, whether the Complainant is entitled for restoration of the electricity connection permanently and the act committed by the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency?
Opposite Parties appeared before this FORA and contended that, the Commissioner of Mangalore City Corporation has ordered disconnection of electricity connection as per order passed in proceeding No.CR 15273/2001-02 dated 16.02.2010. In compliance of the order passed by the Commissioner of Mangalore City Corporation, the Opposite Parties have directed to disconnect the electricity connection has been disconnected and contended that the electricity connection was given to the Complainant only for Power Loom Industry and not for office lighting and contended that there is no deficiency.
However, on perusal of the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, we find that, both the parties admitted before this FORA that, the Commissioner of Mangalore City Corporation has ordered for disconnection of electricity connection as per order passed in proceedings No.CR 15273/2001-02 dated 16.02.2010. Accordingly, after issuing show cause notice the Opposite Party disconnected the power supply. When that being the case, we do not find any deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties in this case. Because they have to comply the direction given by the Mangalore City Corporation in its proceedings No.CR 15273/2001-02. If at all the order passed by the Mangalore City Corporation is illegal or erroneous, the Complainant should approach the appropriate authority not before this FORA. However, we noticed that, the Opposite Parties acted as per the direction given by the Mangalore City Corporation in its order dated 16.02.2010. It is pertinent to note that, the Opposite Parties while disconnecting the power connection to the shop premises owned by the Complainant should not have disconnected the lighting facility which is the basic necessity. At least the Opposite Parties should have provided lighting facility by obtaining necessary documents while disconnecting the entirety and should not have allowed to stay in dark. However, the lighting facility is one of the basic necessities in order to run the shop premises; the Opposite Parties should provide lighting facility by obtaining necessary applications as per the requirements under the Electricity Act to meet the basic necessity. Consequently, the Opposite Parties shall provide lighting facilities to the Complainant before disconnecting the above electricity power to meet the ends of justice.
In view of the above discussion, we hold that the Opposite Parties acted in accordance with the direction given by the Mangalore City Corporation in their proceedings No.15273/2001-02 dated 16.02.2010. The above said order was not challenged by the Complainant before the Appellate Authority and there is no reversal order. That being the case, we do not find any deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties. In view of the above observation, we close the complaint with the observation that, the Opposite Parties shall provide lighting facility to the door No.25-23-1386/2 by obtaining necessary application or documents from the Complainant immediately before disconnecting the above electricity connection permanently. No order as to costs.
6. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is closed with the observation that the Opposite Parties shall provide lighting facility by obtaining necessary documents from the Complainant immediately before disconnecting the electricity connection provided to the door number 25-23-1386/2 permanently. No order as to costs.
The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and therefore the file be consigned to record.
(Page No.1 to 10 dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 10th day of January 2011.)
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Sri.Keshava – Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1 – 26.05.2005: Xerox copy of the Trade licence 2005-06.
Ex C2 – 19.10.2006: Xerox copy of the order passed by the Standing Committee.
Ex C3 – 16.02.2010: Original copy of the order passed by the Commissioner, Mangalore City Corporation.
Ex C4 – 26.02.2010: Xerox copy of the letter issued by the Opposite Party.
Ex C5 – 03.03.2010: Copy of the reply by the Complainant to the Opposite Party.
Ex C6 – 19.04.2010: Notarized copy of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court.
Ex C7 – 28.03.2008: Xerox copy of the judgement and decree passed in O.S. No.692, 693, 694 of 2005.
Ex C8 – 16.02.2010: Xerox copy of the order of the City Corporation Mangalore.
Ex C9 – 30.09.2009: Xerox copy of the order of the Pollution Control Board.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1 – Mr.Abdul Khader, Assistant Executive Engineer of the Opposite Party No.1.
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Ex R1 – 21.07.1976: True copy of the Karnataka Electricity Board wiring contractor’s completion and test report in respect of the electricity connection given to the premises owned by M/s.B.K.Fabrics.
Ex R2 - : Copy of the Looping service from proposed new service wiring diagram of the premises of M/s.B.K. Fabrics.
Ex R3 – 02.12.1976: True copy of the letter written by M/s.B.K.Fabrics to the Asst. Executive Engineer (Elec) KEB.
Ex R4 – 16.02.2010: True copy of the order passed by the Commissioner, Mangalore City Corporation regarding cancellation of the licence No.011319 and 013513 issued to the Complainant.
Dated:10.01.2011 PRESIDENT
