BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 27/04/2012

Date of Order : 26/05/2012

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 259/2012

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. To quote the facts of the case made out by the complainant are as follows :

On 31-03-2008, the complainant along with her husband purchased the residential property along with the electricity connection bearing No. 4690 from one Mr. Baburaj, S/o. Velayudhan and Ambika, W/o. Baburaj. However, the electricity bill is being served on the name of one Mr. Ramachandran, S/o. Narayanan. On 30-04-2008, the complainant obtained sanction from the 3^rd opposite party to use excess electricity for 5 days, since 30-04-2008. On 20-06-2008, while the complainant was using excess electricity for the truss work, the 3^rd opposite party along with a lineman visited the premises and disconnected the electricity connection. However, he reconnected the connection within half an hour. Many persons are misusing electricity for their own purposes, though the K.S.E. Board officials claim that they have obtained necessary permission for the same. The Rules and Regulations are applicable to all the consumers not for the complainant alone. The 6^th opposite party accorded sanction to dig a bore well, on 13-06-2008 and the complainant did the same. The complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party to get necessary permission to erect a motor to pump water from the bore well. Primarily, the 3^rd opposite party directed the complainant to produce ownership certificate from the 6^th opposite party. The 6^th opposite party rejected and returned the application of the complainant to issue ownership certificate. The complainant lodged a complaint against the 6^th opposite party before the 4^th and 5^th opposite parties, but in vain. Thus, the complainant is before us seeking a total compensation of Rs. 1,30,000/- under various heads against the opposite parties.

2. The version of the opposite parties 1 to 3 :-

The complainant has availed sanction to use excess electricity from 30-04-2008 to 04-05-2008. In spite of that she had been using excess electricity even thereafter. The complainant admits in the complaint that she had used excess electricity on 20-06-2008. On 20-06-2008, the 3^rd opposite party intimated the complainant that she had to obtain sanction to use excess electricity. The complainant is liable to pay penal charges under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, if she uses excess electricity without sanction from the K.S.E. Board. It is the duty of the consumer to get the connection transferred in her favour under Regulation 19 (3) of the K.S.E. Board Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005. The K.S.E. Board is only bound to issue the bill in favour of the registered consumer. The complainant has failed to produce the test report and has ownership certificate to get the sanction to erect IP compressor in the bore well. The complainant has no cause of action against the opposite parties. The opposite parties 1 to 3 request to dismiss the complaint with costs of the proceedings.

3. The defense of the 6^th opposite party :-

The ownership of the building bearing No. II/552 has been transferred in favour of the complainant and her husband from Baburaj, S/o. Velayudhan and Ambika, W/o. Baburaj with effect from 16-10-2008. Thereafter on 02-02-2009, the complainant approached the then Secretary of the Grama Panchayath to get a separate connection for her motor shed. The Secretary directed the complainant to comply with the necessary Rules as per the building Rules. But the complainant was not ready to comply with the Rules and managed to retrieve the application from the Secretary raising a hue and cry. The complainant has entrusted a motor shed by using holo bricks and sheets for the building.

4. The Hon'ble Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission vide order in Transfer Application No. 02/2012 dated 16-04-2012 directed this Forum to dispose off the complaint after hearing both sides. The Hon'ble State Commission directed the parties to appear in this Forum on 30-04-2012. On 30-04-2012, the complainant and the 6^th opposite party appeared parties in person the authorised representative of the opposite parties 4 and 5 as well appeared, heard them at length. The opposite parties 1 to 3 filed argument note. Prior to the receipt of the complaint and the related documents in this Forum, the Hon'ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur had examined the complainant as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P26 were marked on her side and the 3^rd opposite party was examined as RW1. Exts. P1 to P26 were renumbered as Exts. A1 to A26 in this Forum. The rank of RW1 also was re-designated as DW1 since.

5. The only point that comes up for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 1,30,000/- from the opposite parties or not?

6. The complainant highlighted the following issues in forbearance :-

1. The 3^rd and 6^th opposite parties had been taking a prejudiced attitude towards the complainant and thereby she and her husband had to suffer lot of inconveniences and mental agony.

2. For the truss work of the building, she had been accorded sanction to use excess electricity for the period from 30-04-2008 to 04-05-2008, however, she could do the walk only for one day.

3. In order to complete the truss work on 20-06-2008, while she was using excess electricity the 3^rd opposite party along with a lineman came to the premises of the complainant humiliated and threatened her with dire consequences.

4. At the instance of the 3^rd opposite party on 02-08-2008, the complainant duly submitted Ext. A6 application before the 3^rd opposite party to get necessary sanction to extend the previous sanction to a future date.

5. The 3^rd opposite party is taking an unjust and arbitrary manner against the complainant only, eventhough others are misusing electricity.

6. The 6^th opposite party rejected and returned the application of the complainant to issue an ownership certificate of her residential building unsustainably.

7. Ext. A6 is the application dated 02-08-2008 submitted by the complainant before the 3^rd opposite party to accord sanction to continue with the previous sanction to a future date. The said application is found to be incomplete, hence only to be rejected. Had the complainant submitted a request for getting sanction to use excess electricity properly as per law, this complaint could not have arisen.

8. We cannot find any fault or deficiency in service on the part of the 3^rd opposite party in conducting inspection at the premises of the complainant on 20-06-2008, on receipt of a secret information regarding misuse of electricity by the complainant. Moreover, a timely action taken in this regard on the part of the 3^rd opposite party is only to be appreciated. To meet the ends of justice, he has gone to the extend of giving the complainant an opportunity to correct herself. Even thereafter, she has admitted her fault in tears. Though the complainant raised various complaints against the 3^rd opposite party before the higher officials, they approved the legal action taken by the 3^rd opposite party especially so because of the demeanor of the 3^rd opposite party during the proceedings. In Ext. A10 letter K.S.E. Board intimated the complainant that she is at liberty to approach the concerned office to get sanction for the temporary use of excess electricity. The lenient view of the 3^rd opposite party, though not consummated legally in not issuing a penal bill in spite is laudable and exemplary.

9. In the meantime, the complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party to get sanction to erect an electric motor in her bore well. The 3^rd opposite party sent Ext. A12 letter along with Ext. A13 guidelines for the same. For that purpose, she had to submit an ownership certificate of the building. Accordingly, she approached the 6^th opposite party with Ext. A14 application on 02-02-2008. The complainant contends that the 6^th opposite party initially accepted Ext. A14 application, and thereafter, returned the same to the complainant for the reasons best known to the 6^th opposite party alone. Against which the complainant lodged Ext. A15 complaint with the 4^th and 5^th opposite parties. The 4^th opposite party enquired into the matter and sent Ext. A16 letter dated 09-03-2010 to the complainant informing her to approach the office of the 6^th opposite party to get the certificate. In spite of that the complainant failed to comply with the direction of the 4^th opposite party.

10. At the time of hearing, this Forum specifically asked the complainant to reiterate her grievances against the opposite parties. According to her, since the 3^rd opposite party failed to accord sanction in Ext. A6, she could not complete the truss work which resulted in damage of the building and she is entitled to get compensation from the 3^rd opposite party. But she has failed to establish such a grievance either in the complaint or in the proof affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination. Further, she submitted that she has erected a motor in the bore well to pump water for her domestic purpose and she never intended to construct a shed to place the motor and she happened to approach the 6^th opposite party for a certificate of ownership of the building due to the mistaken notion on the part of the 3^rd opposite party. The above averment as well does not form the part of the complaint or proof affidavit.

11. In short, the complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. While going through the complaint, it is seen that apart from the claim for compensation she has not sought any other relief against the opposite parties necessarily and legally a compensation can only follow a proved grievance which is not in this case. The complainant has produced vain documents in this Forum, but they are to nought in this context. Admittedly, the complainant is a retired Malayalam language teacher, seemingly she has not been getting respect or appreciation from the society or from the officials which she had been getting from her students obviously. That alone seems to have prompted her to fight against the evils in the society by leading one man agitations as stated in the complaint.

12. Be that things as it may, considering the grievances of the complainant mentioned in the complaint, we think that a direction to the opposite parties 3 and 6 is enough to abate the agony of the complainant.

13. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows :-

1. The 3^rd opposite party shall take immediate steps to accord sanction to the complainant to use excess electricity, if she desires so and submits the necessary application and documents, if any for the same.

2. The 6^th opposite party shall issue an ownership certificate to her shed if she satisfies the necessary norms for the same.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 26^th day of May 2012

Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil

=========