BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 28th of February 2011
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : MEMBER
SRI. ARUN KUMAR K. : MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.215/2010
(Admitted on 13.08.2010)
Mr.Somappa Gowda,
So. Kukkappa Gowda,
Aged about 80 years,
Rep. by his G.P.A. holder his son
Purushothama M,
Aged about 37 years,
RA. Mel Adthale House,
Aranthodu Village, Sullia Taluk,
Dakshina Kannada District. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri.Chandrashekhara N.G).
VERSUS
1. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
The office of Assistant Executive Engineer,
MESCOM,
Sullia Sub Division Sullia,
Sullia Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District.
2. The Executive Engineer,
The office of Assistant Executive Engineer,
MESCOM,
Puttur Division, Puttur Taluk,
Dakshina Kannada. ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the Opposite Parties: Sri.Manoraj R).
***************
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:
Complainant submits that, he is an agriculturist resides in rural area and from his residential house just 60 to 75 feet distance the electric line passes to other neighbour houses. In order to obtain electric connection to his house, the Complainant filed an application before the 1st Opposite Party in the year 2003. After verification 1st Opposite Party assured to provide electric connection but the Opposite Party not taken any steps in order to provide eclectic connection till today. Thereafter, the Complainant issued several request letters dated 5.7.2005 and 2.2.2009 but the Opposite Parties not turned up but as to surprise, issued a bill dated 30.11.2003 to pay Rs.481/- in respect of meter number SL-10449 and shown that, the above said connection obtained in the name of Complainant to his residential address. The 2nd Opposite Party issued a notice dated 27.12.2007 directing the Complainant to pay arrears. The Complainant after receipt of the above notices enquired in the office of the 1st Opposite Party and informed that, he is not holding any electric connection to his residence. The lineman of the 1st Opposite Party visited the residential house and found that there is no electric connection. Even though the Opposite Parties again and again issued the bills. Thereafter the Complainant issued a legal notice dated 25.6.2008 the same has been served to the Opposite Parties. It is stated that, the Opposite Parties not provided the electric connection but issued a bill stating that the Complainant holds electric meter RR No.SL.10499 which amounts to deficiency and stated that, the Opposite Parties despite of taking application not provided the electricity till this date also amounts to deficiency and filed the above complaint 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 set-aside and quash the bills issued by the Opposite Parties dated 30.11.2003 for Rs.481/-, dated 27.12.2007 for Rs.13,478/- and dated 17.06.2008 for Rs.13,478/-, to provide the new electric connection to his residence and also claimed Rs.60,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.
2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel filed version stated as follows:
In the year 1999 the Complainant approached the Opposite Party for electricity connection to his house by forwarding necessary application, besides, wiring contractor’s completion and test report. In pursuance of the application, the power supply lines were drawn till his residential premises but the Complainant refused to take the power supply after the power lines were drawn till his house. The Opposite Party had spent their funds for installing poles, drawing wires and other accessories for supply of electricity to the Complainant and 3 others. The Complainant and 3 others are legally liable to pay the line minimum charges to the Opposite Party every month and stated that the bill issued by the Opposite Party in respect of the line minimum charges and not electricity consumption charges. Since the power lines are drawn till the house of the Complainant and the last point was not connected in view of the Complainant refusing to take power connection, installation is deemed to be serviced and the Complainant is liable to pay the line minimum charges and stated that there is no deficiency and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Opposite Party No.2 adopted the version of the Opposite Party No.1.
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, one Mr.Purushothama – G.P.A. Holder of the Complainant (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex C1 to C8 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. One Sri.Boraiah H (RW1), Assistant Engineer (Technical) of the Opposite Party Department at Sullia filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. Opposite Parties produced four (4) documents as listed in the annexure. Opposite Parties filed notes of arguments along with Electricity Rules, citations and order of the Hon’ble National Commission.
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): Affirmative.
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 Somappa Gowda filed an application dated 20.09.1999 to the Opposite Party No.1 to sanction power supply to his residence (as per document No.1). It is also admitted fact that, Somappa Gowda i.e., the Complainant entered into an agreement for permanent power supply on 26.06.2000 with the Opposite Party (as per Document No.4).
Now the point in dispute between the parties before this
FORA is that, according to the Complainant, he is an agriculturist bearing door No.3/96 in Aranthodu Village of Sullia Taluk filed an application before the 1st Opposite Party in the year 2003 to obtain power connection to his house. The 1st Opposite Party assured to provide electric connection but not taken any steps, on the other hand, issued a bill dated 30.11.2003 to pay Rs.481/- in respect of meter No.SL – 10449 and thereafter issued a notice dated 27.12.2007 directing the Complainant to pay the arrears of Rs.13,478/-. It is stated that, the Complainant applied for electric connection in the year 2003 but the Opposite Parties not made any attempts to provide an electric connection without therebeing any electric connection they issued an electricity bill which is not correct and amounts to deficiency. Further stated that, he resides in rural area and electricity connection requires as a sheer necessity, hence came up with this complaint.
On the contrary, the Opposite Parties stated that, in the year 1999 the Complainant approached the Opposite Party for electric connection forwarding the necessary application, besides wiring contractors completion and test report. In pursuance of the application submitted by the Complainant, the power supply lines were drawn to the residential premises of the Complainant by the Opposite Party incurring expenditures. Further stated that, along with the Complainant there were three other persons of the same locality who had applied for power supply connection to their respective residential premises. But the Complainant refused to take the power supply after the power lines were drawn till his house but the other persons had taken power connection. The Opposite Party had spent their funds for installing poles, drawing wires and for other accessories for the supply of electricity to the Complainant and three others. Therefore, the Opposite Party issued bill for minimum charges every month proportionately divided between the four consumers including the Complainant and stated that, the bill issued by them is legal as per the Regulation 35.00 of the K.E.B. Supply Regulation.
The Complainant filed oral evidence by way of affidavit in order to substantiate his case and produced Ex C1 to C8. The Opposite Parties also filed oral evidence by way of affidavit and produced four (4) documents.
The Complainant sworn to the fact that, he applied for the electricity power supply connection in the year 2003 but not produced any endorsement to show that the application was filed in the year 2003 to the Opposite Party. But on the other hand, the Opposite Parties produced the application dated 20.9.1999, wherein it reveals that, the Complainant Somappa Gowda submitted the application as per document No.1 to the Opposite Party and the document No.2 is the true copy of the wiring contractor’s completion and test report. From the above documents, it reveals that, the Complainant applied for the power supply connection in the year 1999 along with wiring contractors completion and test report. The document No.3 is the true copy of the letter written by the Complainant Somappa Gowda to the Opposite Party No.1 which reads thus:-
jAzÀ,
JA. J. ¸ÉÆêÀÄ¥Àà UËqÀ,
©£ï PÀÄPÀÌ¥Àà UËqÀ,
ªÉÄïï CqÀÛ¯Éà ªÀÄ£É,
CgÀAvÉÆÃqÀÄ UÁæªÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÉÇøÀÄÖ.
jUÉ,
¸ÀºÁ0iÀÄPÀ PÁ0iÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ EAf¤0iÀÄgï,
ªÉĸÁÌA, ¸ÀļÀå,
¸ÀļÀå, zÀ.PÀ.
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ,
«µÀ0iÀÄ: £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ «zÀÄåZÀéQÛ ¥ÀqÉ0iÀÄĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ.
- - -
£Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß £ÉgÉPÀgÉ0iÀĪÀgÁzÀ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ d£ÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ «zÀÄåZÀéQÛUÉ Cfð ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ FUÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀ£ÉPÀë£ï PÉÆqÀĪÀ ºÀAvÀPÉÌ vÀ®Ä¦gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ £À£Àß ªÉÊ0iÀÄQÛPÀ PÁgÀt¢AzÁV FUÀ PÀ£ÉPÀë£ï ¥ÀqÀPÉƼÀî®Ä C£Á£ÀÄPÀÆ®ªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £À£Àß eÉÆvÉ0iÀĪÀjUÉ PÀ£ÉPÀë£ï PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁV PÉýPÉƼÀÄîvÁÛ, £À£Àß ¥Á°UÉ §gÀĪÀ ¯ÉÊ£ÀÄ «Ä¤ªÀĪÀiï ZÁdð£ÀÄß PÀlÖ®Ä £Á£ÀÄ §zÀÞ¤zÉÝÃ£É JA§ÄzÁV F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ M¦àPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛãÉ. £À£ÀUÉ «zÀÄåvï ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀð ¨ÉÃPÉAzÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß ¸ÀA¥ÀQð¸ÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
EAvÀÄ vÀªÀÄä «zsÉÃ0iÀÄ,
¸À»
0iÀÄA.J. ¸ÉÆêÀÄ¥Àà
From the above letter of the Complainant shows that, due to his personal inconvenience he could not obtain the connection and undertaken to pay the minimum charges chargeable to him. No doubt, the Complainant wrote a letter expressing his inconvenience after completion of the lines were drawn till his house. But we observed that, it is not the definite case of the Opposite Party that, the above power supply lines were drawn only to the Complainant’s house. But as admitted by the Opposite Party in their version that the power supply lines were drawn to the residential premises of the Complainant along with there were three other persons of the same locality who had applied for power supply connection to their respective residential premises. When that being the case, the Opposite Party should not have collected the minimum charges from the Complainant because he had not availed the service of the Opposite Party to his residence. The Complainant in this case admittedly gave a letter to the Opposite Party that, due to his personal inconvenience, he is not in a position to take the electricity connection. When that is so, the Opposite Party should not have forced to pay the Complainant by mentioning the electricity meter in Ex C2, C3 and C4. In case, the Complainant is the only person filed an application, where the Opposite Party to draw a power supply lines then of course the Opposite Parties are right in demanding the payment from the Complainant. But in the instant case, there were three other persons of the same locality who had applied for power supply connection to their respective residential premises.
Further, we observed that, in the instant case, the Ex C2, C3 and C4 are the bill and notices issued by the Opposite Parties dated 30.11.2003, 27.12.2007 and 17.06.2008 shows that, the Complainant is holding R.R. No.SL-10449. We are very surprise to note that, without sanctioning/installing the R.R number to the Complainant, how the Opposite Party could collect a minimum charge from the Complainant by mentioning the R.R number. No doubt, the Regulation 35.00 of K.E.B. Electricity Supply Regulation states that, “charges for power supply in accordance with the Tariff in force from time to time, or the line minimum charges, if any, whichever is higher, shall be payable by the Consumer until the Power Supply Agreement is terminated, irrespective of the installation being in service or under disconnection. However, the line minimum charges, if any, are payable only during the initial agreement period”. But the Opposite Parties failed to show that, they have provided R.R. number to the Complainant and the Complainant is consuming electricity power in the said meter. Apart from that, the Opposite Parties failed to produce any report or documents to show that how many poles were put and what is the expenditure incurred to draw a line. Nothing has been placed on record in this case. In the absence of any materials/cogent evidence, the Opposite Parties not supposed to charge according to their whims and fancies by invoking Section 35 of the Regulation. To claim the amount under Section 35 of the Regulation, one must install/sanction R.R number to the consumers and at the same time maintain the report to show that what steps they have taken to draw a line which includes the expenditure. But in the instant case, the Opposite Parties failed to produce any such reports before this FORA.
We have noticed that, the Complainant not availed the service of the Opposite Parties but submitted an application for supply of power lines along with three other persons but due to his personal inconvenience he could not obtain the power connection and the same was intimated to the Opposite Parties. It is not the definite case of the Opposite Parties that, the electricity power supply lines were drawn only to the Complainant’s residence. In the absence of the same, we hold that the bills issued by the Opposite Parties are not justifiable. Since the Complainant not availed the service of the Opposite Parties, he is not liable to pay line minimum charges and electricity consumption charges as claimed by the Opposite Parties and the bill dated 30.11.2003 and notices dated 27.12.2007 and 17.06.2008 issued by the Opposite Parties is hereby set aside.
As far as the electricity connection is concerned, it is one of the basic necessity, hence the Opposite Parties are hereby directed to give an electricity connection to the residence of the Complainant immediately by taking necessary documents if any. Further Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment/compliance shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
As far as compensation is concerned, we are declined to award compensation because the Complainant himself gave a letter to the Opposite Party No.1 that, due to his personal inconvenience he is not in a position to obtain a power line in the year 2003 when the Opposite Party about to give a power supply to his house. Hence, the Complainant is not entitled any compensation in this case.
6. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. The electricity bill and notices dated 30.11.2003, 27.12.2007 and 17.6.2008 issued by the Opposite Parties are null and void. Further, we direct the Opposite Parties to provide electricity connection to the residence of the Complainant immediately after obtaining necessary documents if any and also pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment/compliance shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
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 12 dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 28th day of February 2011.)
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Mr.Purushothama – G.P.A. Holder of the Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1 – 01.01.2007: Attested copy of General Power of Attorney.
Ex C2 – 15.11.2003: Bill issued by the 1st Opposite Party for Rs.481/-.
Ex C3 – 27.12.2007: Notice issued by the 2nd Opposite Party.
Ex C4 – 17.06.2008: Notice issued by the 2nd Opposite Party.
Ex C5 – 25.06.2008: Copy of the Lawyer’s notice.
Ex C6 - : Postal acknowledgement.
Ex C7 – 05.07.2005: Request letter.
Ex C8 – 02.02.2009: Request letter.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1 – Sri.Boraiah H, Assistant Engineer (Technical) of the Opposite Party Department at Sullia
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Doc. No.1 – 20.09.1999: True copy of the application submitted by the Complainant.
Doc. No.2 – 26.06.2000: True copy of the wiring contractor’s completion and test report.
Doc. No.3 - : True copy of the letter written by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.1.
Doc. No.4 – 26.06.2000: Agreement entered between the Complainant and the Opposite Party No.1.
Dated:28.02.2011 PRESIDENT
