Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/159/2015

Smt. Meenaxi Gangappa Padagatti, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Asst. Executive Engineer, El. - Opp.Party(s)

G.V.Joshi

15 May 2017

ORDER

                 

ADDITIONAL  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BELAGAVI

C.C.No.159/2015

 

                     Date of filing: 14/03/2015

 

                                                                  Date of disposal: 15/05/2017

 

P R E S E N T :-

 

	(1)	Shri. A.G.Maldar, B.Com,LL.B. (Spl.) President.
	(2)	Smt.J.S. Kajagar, B.Sc. LLB. (Spl.)  Lady Member.

   

 

COMPLAINANT      -

Smt. Meenaxi Gangappa Padagatti, Age: 40 Years, Occ: Business, R/o: S.Y.No.833/1B, Railway Station Road, Raibag, Dist. Belagavi.                        (Rep. by Shri.G.V.Joshi, Adv.)

 

- V/S -

 

OPPOSITE PARTY

The Asst. Executive Engineer (Ele.), O and M, Sub-Division, HESCOM, Raibag, Dist. Belagavi.                         (Rep. by Shri.V.K.Patil, Adv.)

 

JUDGEMENT

 

By  Sri.A.G. Maldar, President.

 

 

1.      This is a Complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as Act) against the Opposite Party (in short the “Op”) directed to pay the compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deficiency suffered by the complainant i.e. 18.06.2014 till realization and any other reliefs.

 

2.      The facts of the case in brief are that;

 

It is case of the complainant that, the complainant is the owner of the M/s Ritesh Petroleum, situated at Sy.No.83/1B, Raibag, since April 2009 the complainant had obtained the electricity connection from OP bearing connection No.RBG/CL/ 36986 for running the said business and further as per the usage of electricity bill issued by the OP, the complainant had paid, which is well within the knowledge of the OP.

 

It is further case of the complainant that, there is no balance or due shown in the bill up to August – 2014, but the OP showing dues, even though there is no any mistake or wrong on my part OP by making allegation that, Meter Constant 10 is left over which is find place at the time of inspection on dtd: 07.06.2014 and issued the request letter on 18.06.2014 to pay the back billing of Rs.3,26,331/- and cooperate with Op company, hence thereby complainant is suffered from deficiency of service on the part of the OP and the complainant has given reply to the said letter to the OP and also copy to other concerned authorities of HESCOM and further the complainant got the dealership from Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., after obtaining loan from the BPCL Rs.10,00,000/- and also from SBI Raibag of Rs.6,00,000/- and started the petrol pump and she has got only the source of income for her livelihood.

 

It is further contended that, by looking to the repeated demand of the alleged back billing due, the complainant has got issued legal notice on dtd: 09.07.2014 and the same is received by the OP and even after issuing legal notice the OP disconnected the electricity connection to the complainant’s petrol pump without following the law and regulations and further the complainant has requested to the OP to connect the electricity to the petrol pump, at that time the OP demanded 50% of alleged back billing payment and there is no alternative to continue said petrol pump she is constrained to pay the 50% of the back billing amount of Rs.1,63,116/- on dtd: 30.08.2014.

 

It is further contended that, the complainant has filed the complaint against OP before Permanent Lok Adalat, Belgaum and got the TI order against OP and got the final order and the OP is restrained from recovering the alleged arrears of Rs.1,63,116/- from the complainant without procedure prescribed by law stated in the said detailed order and further the complainant submitted that, thereafter Op given the threat of disconnection of electricity connection to the complainant’s petrol pump if not paid alleged back billing of Rs.1,63,116/- within 15 days after receipt of notice through notice dtd: 29.01.2015 and for which sufficiently replied by issuing reply notice dtd: 09.02.2015 and same is accepted. The complainant submitted that, the said demand made by the Op by issuing the notice is not procedure or law laid down in Electricity Act as well in the HESCOM regulations.  Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant may be allowed and compensation may be awarded as prayed above.

 

 

 

3.      After receipt of said notice, the OP  has appeared through his counsel and resisted the claim of the complainant by filing his written version and denied all allegations made out in the complaint and contended that, there is no dispute between complainant and OP that, due to constant reading of meter 10 digit is left over and same has been find place during the meter inspection and OP issued notice to the complainant to pay the difference of arrears of electricity bill of Rs.3,26,331/- and the complainant has admitted the said amount and paid 50% arrears bill of Rs.1,63,116/- without objections and further the complainant has approached the Permanent Lok Adalt and filed petition bearing PLD 341/2014 and the said petition is allowed with condition that, not to disconnect the electricity supply to the complainant on dtd: 31.12.2014.

 

          It is further case of the Op that, the complainant has paying the remaining balance amount of Rs.1,63,116/- through monthly bill on installment basis, so the OP has recovered the electricity consumed bill from complainant but, not any other charges as alleged by the complainant and further the Permanent Lok Adalt Belagavi in PLD No.341/2014 disposed off on 31.12.2014 has observed in the last para of order that, the OP/HESCOM shall be at liberty to recover the said amount of Rs.1,63,116/- or any amount from petitioner by following procedure, so the complainant has no locus standi to file this false complaint and there is no deficiency of service, no negligence on the part of the HESCOM/OP on that ground the OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint in the interest of justice.

 

4.      Both the parties have filed their affidavits in support of their case  and on behalf of complainant has produced 15 documents which are marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-15, as against this, the OP produced 02 documents which are marked as Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2,
for sake of our convenience, we have marked P & R series. Heard the arguments on both sides.

 

5.       Now, on the basis of these facts, the following points arise for our consideration:

 

 

 

 

1. Whether the complainant proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

 

 

 

2.  What order?

 

    

 

 6.      Our findings on the above points are as follows;

 

 

            1) In the Negative.

            2) As per final order for the following;

 

 R E A S O N S

 

 

7.       Point No.1:-  After careful going through the complaint, written version and evidence of both the parties, there is no dispute in respect of the complainant was residing in different houses and taking electricity tariff concession till his retirement and also after his retirement constructed the house for which he has taken electricity connection under three RR Numbers mentioned above and also OP has not disputed regarding the demand notice dtd: 28-03-2014 to the complainant demanding arrears of Rs.50,060/- pertaining to RR No.43954 and threatening to disconnect the electricity supply of three present installations of the complainant, if he fails to make payment within 7 days.   But the complainant contended that he had vacated the house belonging to the said Bhimashankar Patil in December-2003 and shifted to a new house as a tenant, having RR No.EH6684A/16/3020/CSDI.  On the application filed by the complainant on 06-12-2003 the Executive Engineer of GESCOM passed an order withdrawing the tariff concession given to the complainant in respect of RR No.43954 and passed an order giving the same concession in the tariff in respect of the shifted house bearing RR No.EH668A/16/3020/CSDI vide order Dtd: 16-01-2004, which are marked as Ex.P.1 & Ex.P.2, and the complainant retired from service on  31-03-2007, so the GESCOM had withdrawn the tariff concession extended to him to the above said house w.e.f. 19-03-2007.  This contention of the complainant is denied by the OP and the OP contended that the installation having RR No.43954 was standing in the name of complainant himself, for which he had taken electricity power tariff concession, as he was the employee of the GESCOM.    But the withdrawal of the concession free lighting tariff concession to the said RR Number, the complainant has not informed about his vacating the said house and he had not applied for change of name of the installation, thus the said installation is still standing in the name of the complainant and as per the records of the GESCOM, there is electricity outstanding arrears of Rs.50,060/- in respect of the said RR No.43954.  So, the complainant is liable to pay the said arrears and if really complainant had vacated the said house, he ought to have applied for change of the name in favour of the owner of the building at Billing Section, in respect of the said installation which has not been done.  So, as per rules and regulations of the GESCOM, the OP is justified in claiming the said arrears by issuing a demand notice and therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 

 

 

9.  Looking to the facts of the case that the complainant is contending that he had given intimation regarding vacate of the house bearing RR No.43954, then the question did not arise to pay the arrears bill of RR Number and even the complainant is not residing in the said house from the date of intimation.                      So claiming the arrears bill which is marked as Ex.R.1 by giving demand notice is amounts to deficiency of service.   By observing the said contention of the complainant alleged in the complaint and in evidence, it reflects that there is no any relationship between the parties as “Consumer” and “Service provider”, but it is employee and employer relationship, it depends upon the employers rules and regulations which has been constituted by the GESCOM.   However the employer has been granted concession in electricity tariff as per clause of Karnataka Electricity Rules and Conducts, which cannot be challenged by filing a complaint before the Consumer Forum by praying for quashing demand notice issued by the OP, it is not the case of the complainant that, he is paying bills regularly, but the OP failed to supply and provide electricity for the same and demand more bills.   In this case the OP has not challenged the contention of the complainant that his complaint is maintainable before this Forum and nowhere the OP stated in his written version that this complaint is not maintainable.

 

10.   The OP relied on the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Pet. No.4688/1998 wherein it is held that Sec.24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 entitles the licensee KEB to disconnect the electric supply in case, any person neglects to pay any charge for energy due from him.  But in the instant case the complainant prayed for quashing of demand arrears bill is not proper to decide/adjudicate the matter before this Forum.  In our considered opinion the OP has every right to disconnect the electric supply, if there is any arrears of dues.  Hence there is merit in the contention raised by the OP.

 

11.    The complainant state away has challenged the demand notice issued by the OP and requested to quash the same.  The complainant has failed to substantiate and to convince that this Forum has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  Hence in our considered opinion that this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and the complainant has got his remedy elsewhere but not before this Forum as discussed above as this Forum has no power to quash the arrears of electricity bills.   Therefore this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum, hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly we answer Point No: 1 in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:

 

O R D E R

 For the reasons discussed above, the complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is hereby dismissed as not maintainable.  

 

Under the circumstances, parties shall bear their own costs.

 

         

            (This order is dictated to the Stenographer, transcript edited, corrected and then pronounced in the open forum on this 15^th day of May, 2017).

 

Sri. A.G.Maldar,     President.

Smt. J.S. Kajagar,    Lady Member.