Karnataka

Bellary

CC/53/2014

D.S.BADRINATH - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,GESCOM. - Opp.Party(s)

SHRI H.ERANNA

02 Feb 2015

ORDER

FILED ON:	24-03-2014
ORDER ON:	12-02-2015

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BELLARY

 

 

C.C.No.53 of 2014

 

Present :

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(1)   Shri. R.Bandachar,

            B.Com, LL.B.  (Spl) ……    President

                                                           (in-charge)

 

(2) Smt Mary Havila,

                        B.A.             ……        Member

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DATED THIS THE 12^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015

 

 

 

 

 

COMPLAINANT         By-Shri H Eranna, Advocate, Bellary.   //VS/	Shri  D S Badarinath, S/o late D S Gopal Rao, Advocate, R/o 57/18, 3rd cross, Moka road, Gandhinagar, Bellary.
RESPONDENT     By Shri.R Pandu, Advocate, Bellary.	The Assistant Executive Engineer, GESCOM, Opp: Old CMC, Royal circle, Bellary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

//ORDER//

 

 

 

 

 

 

Per Shri R Bandachar

 

The complainant filed the complaint against the respondent U/Sec-12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

 

 

 

 

 

2.  The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is a consumer with the respondent’s company under AEH RR No.13243.  The said connection was taken for his residential purpose.  During the year 2008 the complainant had let out his building to the tenant who used the said building for commercial purpose for which the respondent used to pass the commercial bill. Before occupying the said building by the complainant, the respondent issued bill for Rs.445/- which is duly paid by the complainant.  The tenant vacated the premises and the complainant occupied the said building for his residential purpose.  In this regard the complainant wrote a letter to the respondent on 01-04-2013. The respondent inspected the building and issued letter on 05-04-2013.  In spite of submission of letter, the respondent is issuing monthly bill on commercial basis.  The respondent issued the bill for Rs.4,469/- towards the month of June-2013.  The complainant approached the respondent for which the respondent issued provisional bill for Rs.2,678/- which is paid by him.  The complainant again approached the respondent with meter reading in the month of July-2013. Basing on the meter reading the respondent issued provisional bill for Rs.757/- which is paid by him.   The complainant received a bill for Rs.4,350/- in the month of August-2013 for which the respondent made some calculations and directed him to pay Rs.1,106/- which is paid by the complainant.  The respondent issued two more bills of October and December of 2013 for Rs.16,421/- and Rs.1,662/- respectively and directed him to pay the bill for December-2013 of Rs.1,662/-.  Likewise the respondent issued bill for Rs.8,691/- for the month of November 2013 which is also paid by the complainant.  The respondent issued another bill for Rs.12,545/- for the month of February-2014 and April-2014 as nil.   After due enquiry the complainant came to know that he has paid excess amount of Rs.7,000/- and odd. The respondent is still issuing the bills for commercial LT-3 connection only.  Due to the act of the respondent the complainant suffered mental agony which amounts to deficiency in service.  The complainant got issued legal notice dated: 10-03-2014 which is served on the respondent.  But the respondent has not changed the tariff from commercial to residential, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  Therefore, the complaint.

 

3.   The respondent filed the written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  All the allegations made in the complaint, except those which are specifically admitted, are denied. This Forum has no jurisdiction as the alleged facts do not constitute consumer dispute.  The civil courts jurisdiction is ousted under sec-145 of the Electricity Act 2003.  As per the Electricity Act as well as rules and regulations, if there is any excessive demand the remedy is only to file appeal before the competent authority or Ombudsman or to the separate tribunal constituted under the Electricity Act.  The respondent is only an employee of GESCOM and there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the respondent.  Under the Electricity Act 2003 the GESCOM is the licensee and therefore, the said GESCOM is proper party to the proceedings.  The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. It is true that the complainant is the consumer in respect of RR.No.13243.  It is also true that the complainant gave an application for change of tariff from LT3 to LT2 as the premises was used for residential purpose.  It is also true that the application was considered on 15-04-2013 and the tariff was changed from LT3 to LT2.  But unfortunately due to the technical defect in server (badge No.400000413652 and Service Agreement ID No.5606983810) correct billing was not done.  The defect in the server was rectified on 20-01-2014.  In view of the letter No.SD109204 dated:          04-04-2014 to rectify the bills due to the defect in the server and in order to see that no harm or injury is caused to the consumer oral instructions was given to raise the bill in respect of actual consumed units and it was also instructed not to disconnect the service connection.   The respondent is prepared to reconsider the bills and if any excess amount is paid the same would be intimated to the complainant.   There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  Therefore, the complaint be dismissed.

 

 

\

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.  The complainant to prove his case, as his evidence, filed his affidavit, which is marked as P.W.1 and got marked 12 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. The respondent to prove his case, filed his affidavit, which is marked as R.W.1 and got marked 01 document as Ex.R.1.

 

5.  Heard arguments on both sides.

 

 

6. The points that arise for our consideration are;

 

 

1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in

    

                   service on the part of the respondent towards him?

    

    

        2.  Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs

                                                                                    prayed for in the complaint?

    

2. What order?

    

    

    

   7.     The findings on the above points are as under.

    

                                                             Point No.1:   In the affirmative.                                                       

                Point No.2:    Partly in the affirmative.

   Point No.3:   As per final order.

 

// R  E A S O N S //

 

Point No.1 : -

 

 

 

8.  All the material facts narrated in the complaint as well as in the written version are not specifically disputed by both parties.  The only question for our consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service or not on the part of the respondent in not changing the tariff of the complainant’s meter from LT-3 to LT-2 in spite of written request.

 

 

9.   On perusal of the materials placed before us, as per Ex.P.1 which is the copy of letter addressed to the respondent, the complainant requested to change of Tariff from commercial to residential in respect of his meter.   Even after the said request the respondent issued the bills on commercial basis, as per Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.9.  However, the respondent contended that due to the technical defect in server (badge No.400000413652 and Service Agreement ID No.5606983810) correct billing was not done. The said reason putforth by the respondent is not worth relying.  It is the bounden duty of the respondent to provide proper service to their customers/consumers in accordance with Electricity Act as well as rules and regulations. Due to act of the respondent the complainant should not be made to suffer for which he has to be compensated reasonably.   In view of the Sec-3 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force, the contention of the respondent that the civil courts jurisdiction is ousted under sec-145 of the Electricity Act 2003, cannot be accepted.

 

10.  For the reasons discussed above, we are of the opinion that the complainant has made out a case of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  Accordingly, this point is answered in the affirmative.

 

 

 

Point No.2 :-

11.   As the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, he is entitled for compensation towards the same along with cost of the proceedings, which shall be as per final order.  Accordingly, this point is answered partly in the affirmative.

 

 

 

Point No.3 : -

12.   In view of the discussions made under Point No.1 and 2, we pass the following;

 

 

//ORDER//

 

The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.

 

 

 

 

 

The complainant is entitled to recover Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, from the respondent.

 

 

 

The complainant is also entitled to recover Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings, from the respondent.

 

 

 

The respondent is liable to pay the above said amounts to the complainant within two months from the date of this order.

 

 

 

 

 

Inform the parties accordingly.

 

 

 

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, typescript edited, corrected and then pronounced in the open court this 12th day of February 2015)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	(R.BANDACHAR) PRESIDENT.
	(MARY HAVILA) MEMBER.