Complainant/s:           1) Smt. Neelamma W/o Kotrappa Oli

                                                Age:28 Yrs, Occ:Household,

                                                R/o Doni, Tq:Mundargi

                                                Dist:Gadag.

                                                (Rep. by Sri.S.B.Manvi, Advocate)   

V/s

JUDGEMENT

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SRI. RAJU.N.METRI, MEMBER

          The complainant has filed the complaint U/Sec.35 of C.P Act, 2019 seeking direction against Ops cancellation for arrears of bill of Rs.2,834/-, towards mental agony of Rs.50,000/- and cost of litigation.  

2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-

         The complainant is  a customer of Op No.2 bearing RR No.23879 installed to her house No.157 in the year 2019. Since then she is regularly paying the bill and no arrears of bill was due.  On 01.11.2021 a bill was issued for Rs.229.57 paisa along with Rs.2,834/- as arrears in all Rs.3,064/-. Complainant issued show cause notice to Op No.2 on 23.12.2021 for cancellation of arrears bill, as there was no arrears due. Again on 02.02.2022 issued letter to the OP, but no action was taken or any reply given by the OP.  On 23.03.2022 got issued a legal notice through advocate. Op No.2 replied on 11.04.2022 stating that arrears of Rs.2,834/- is due in respect of DNL 88, wherein complainant was residing. The said DNL-88 is no way concern to complainant and she is not liable to pay the arrears of the said installation.  Therefore, Ops have committed the deficiency of service.  Hence, filed this complaint.

          3.       After admitting the complaint, notices were issued to the OPs, they have appeared through their counsel and filed the written version.

          4.       The brief facts of written version filed by OPs are as under:-

          OPs denied the various allegations and admitted that, the complainant is a customer of RR No.23879 and paying all the bills regularly, but denied that, Ops have committed the deficiency of service. Ops submitted that, complainant was previously residing in the house of deceased Basappa Somappa Oli, who is the grandfather of her husband, DNL-88 is installed to the house of Basappa, complainant was also utilizing the electricity.  Hence, complainant is also liable to pay the arrears of Rs.2,832/- which was due in DNL- 88. Once a bill is issued to the customer there is no provision for cancellation  or withdrawal.  Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

          5.       To prove the case, the complainant has filed affidavit evidence and was examined as PW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 and Sri.Pandurang Netrappa Talawar, AEE and
Sri. Mallappa Basavennappa Ajagonda, GVP,  for Op No.2 have  filed affidavit evidence and were examined as RW-1 & RW-2 and got marked the documents as Ex.OP-1 to  Ex.OP-7.

6.       Counsel for OPs filed written argument. Heard the argument on both sides.

          7.       The points for our consideration arose are as under:

          i)        Whether the complainant proves that, there is a                      deficiency of service committed by the OPs?

          ii)       Whether the complainant proves that, she is                           entitled for the relief?

          iii)      What order?

          8.       Our findings on the above points are as under:   

                   Point No.1: In the affirmative.

                   Point No.2: In the partly affirmative. 

                   Point No.3: As per final order.

          REASONS

          9.       Point No.1 & 2:- The points are taken together to avoid the repetition of facts. The learned counsel for complainant argued that, as per evidence of PW-1 and Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11, complainant proved the deficiency of service committed by the Ops. The learned counsel for Ops argued that, no deficiency of service is committed by the Ops.

          10.     On careful perusal of the materials placed before us, PW-1 has filed affidavit in-lieu of her chief examination and reiterated the contents of the complaint.  PW-1 has stated that, the complainant is  a customer of Op No.2 bearing RR No.23879 installed to her house No.157 in the year 2019. Since then she is regularly paying the bill and no arrears of bill was due.  On 01.11.2021 a bill was issued for Rs.229.57 paisa along with Rs.2,834/- as arrears in all Rs.3,064/-. Complainant issued show cause notice to Op No.2 on 23.12.2021 for cancellation of arrears bill, as there was no arrears due. Again on 02.02.2022 issued letter to the OP, but no action was taken or any reply given by the OP.  On 23.03.2022 got issued a legal notice through advocate. Op No.2 replied on 11.04.2022 stating that arrears of Rs.2,834/- is due in respect of DNL 88, wherein complainant was residing. The said DNL-88 is no way concern to complainant and she is not liable to pay the arrears of the said installation.  Therefore, Ops have committed the deficiency of service. 

          11. Per contra, RW-1 has filed affidavit and reiterated the contents of the written version filed by OPs. RW-1 has stated that, OPs denied the various allegations and admitted that, OPs denied the various allegations and admitted that, the complainant is a customer of RR No.23879 and paying all the bills regularly, but denied that, Ops have committed the deficiency of service. Ops submitted that, complainant was previously residing in the house of deceased Basappa Somappa Oli, who is the grandfather of her husband, DNL-88 is installed to the house of Basappa, complainant was also utilizing the electricity.  Hence, complainant is also liable to pay the arrears of Rs.2,832/- which was due in DNL- 88. Once a bill is issued to the customer there is no provision for cancellation  or withdrawal.

          12. RW-2 has stated in the affidavit that, he enquired the locality of complainant and found that, earlier she was residing with Basappa Oli and utilizing the electricity installed to DNL-88 and she is liable to pay the arrears of Rs.2,832/-. Ex.Op-1 letter issued by Op No.2,
Ex.Op-2 reveals that, amount due in DNLL-88 is transferred to complainants account DNLL-23879. Ex.OP-1 is issued only on the enquiry made by RW-2 report of village electricity representative. Ex.Op-3 to Ex.OP-6 electricity bills are not disputing by the complainant.

          13.   At the very outset, OPs are not disputing that, the complainant is having installation of RR No. 23879 and paying the bill regularly. The main contention of Ops is that, , earlier she was residing with Basappa Oli and utilizing the electricity installed to DNL-88 and she is liable to pay the arrears of Rs.2,832/-.  Ex.C-1 & Ex.C-2 are letters issued by complainant to the Op No.2, requesting to cancel arrears of bill as there was no arrears due in her RR No.23879, Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-9 are electricity bills and receipt, Ex.C-10 is the Postal acknowledgment, Ex.C-11 is the reply issued by OPs are not disputed. Now the question is whether complainant is liable to pay the arrears of Rs.2,832/- which was due in DNL-88 or not is to be looked into. According to Ops complainant was residing with grandfather of her husband Basappa Oli.  Wherein, arrears of Rs.2,832/- was due in DNL-88. So, burden lies upon Ops to prove that, complainant was residing and utilizing the electricity through DNL-88. No documents or reliable corroborated evidence is placed by the Ops. Ops are relying only
on the enquiry made by RW-2 GVP, and on his report Ex.OP-2,  and transferred the arrears of Rs.2,832/- from DNL-88 to RR No.23879 of complainant. If, arrears is due in respect of DNL-88, Ops have ample power to recover the said arrears out of deposited amount or disconnecting the supply of electricity to the said installation and also have right to recover the arrears from who are actually residing and utilizing the electricity from DNL-88. The acts of OPs instead of taking action against persons who are utilizing the electricity out of DNL-88 have transferred the arrears to RR No.23879 meter of complainant is not proper nor in accordance with law.  Therefore, the contention of Ops that, the complainant is liable to pay the arrears of Rs.2,832/- belonging to another meter DNL-88 which stands in the name of deceased Basappa Somappa Oli, cannot be accepted. As per Ex.OP-7 General VI Clause Arrears in any particular installation, which is under disconnection for nonpayment, shall be collected as arrears of any other installation standing in the name of the same Consumer. Therefore, as per Ex.OP-7 the complainant is not liable to pay the arrears of DNL-88 Rs.2,832/-, as it does stand in the name of complainant, instead its stands in the name of Basappa Somappa Oli, which shows that, both the consumers are different. Hence, Ex.Op-7 does not support the Ops version. Therefore, Ops have failed to prove that, complainant is liable to pay the arrears of another bill. Thus, Ops have committed the deficiency of service.

          14. For the above, complainant has proved that, he is entitled for the cancellation of arrears bill of Rs.2,832/-. Complainant has suffered mental agony due to the act of Ops and she lodged the complaint through  counsel and is attending the Commission since long time, thereby she has suffered mental agony. So, complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation. Accordingly, we answer point No.1 in the affirmative and point No.2 in the partly affirmative.   

          15.    POINT No. 3: In the result, we pass the following:

//O R D E R//

              The complaint filed U/Sec.35 Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is partly allowed against Ops.

Arrears amount of Rs.2,832/- transferred to RR No.23879 of complainant is null and void. Ops are directed to withdraw/ cancel Rs.2,832/- from RR No.23879 and also supply the electricity regularly as per consumption.

Further, the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation.

Op No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to comply the order within a one month from the date of this order.

Office is directed to send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.

         (Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this  7^th  day of February-2023)

,            

(Shri Raju N. Metri)      (Shri. D.Y. Basapur)   (Smt.Yashoda Bhaskar. Patil)

        MEMBER                 PRESIDENT              WOMAN MEMBER

-: ANNEXURE :-

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S:

PW-1: Smt. Neelamma W/o Kotrappa Oli

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1 : Application given by complainant.

Ex.C-2: Application given by complainant.

Ex.C-3: Current bill.

Ex.C-4: Paid receipt.

Ex.C-5 to 9 : Current bills.

Ex.C-10: Postal acknowledgment.  

Ex.C-11: Reply notice dtd:11.04.2022

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

RW-1: Pandurang Netrappa Talawar

RW-2: Sri. Mallappa Basavanneppa Ajagond

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:

Ex.OP-1:Reply notice dtd:11.04.2022.

Ex.OP-2 : Shri. Mallappa Ajagond letter issued to Asst. Executive

               Engineer, Hescom, Mudaragi Dtd:16.09.2021.

Ex.OP-3 to 6 :Copy of current bills.

Ex.Op-7:Copy of K.E.R.C, Karnataka Electricity Regulatory

             Commission, General clause 4.12.

(Shri Raju N. Metri)    (Shri. D.Y. Basapur)   (Smt.Yashoda Bhaskar. Patil)

        MEMBER                 PRESIDENT              WOMAN MEMBER