KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.597/2018

JUDGEMENT DATED: 09.11.2023

(Against the Order in C.C.432/2014 of CDRC, Kozhikode)

PRESENT:

APPELLANT:

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

(by Adv. Aniyoor K. Venugopalan Nair)

JUDGEMENT

SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN: MEMBER

          This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order in C.C.No.432/2014 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kozhikode (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission for short).  As per the order dated 05.07.2018, the complaint was dismissed by the District Commission.  Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant has filed the appeal.

2.       The complaint in brief is as follows:

The complainant had a domestic electric connection to his house from Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) with consumer No 3894. It is a 30 years old connection and he was regularly paying the bills. He had remitted all the bill amounts up to 17.05.2013.    He was working at Ernakulam and after payment of the bill on 17.05.2013, the house was unoccupied and there was no consumption of electricity. Hence no bill was paid thereafter. The opposite party had dismantled his electricity connection and had removed the meter box for non-payment of the minimum charge after the said date without giving proper notice, though he had given his present address at Ernakulum. He approached the Executing Engineer of the opposite party on 26.08.2014 and submitted an application for reconnection in a hundred rupee stamped paper which was not accepted by him and the complainant was asked to take a fresh connection.  He had to spend more than Rs 30,000/-   for replacing the LT switch board, ELCB Board, Meter board and other electrical works and labour charges for obtaining the connection. As his electric connection was disconnected without any intimation or proper notice, the opposite party is bound to reconnect the same without insisting him to apply for a fresh connection. He was compelled to spend substantial amount and also had to suffer mental agony because of the unlawful action of the opposite party officials. Hence the complaint was filed praying to direct the opposite party to reconnect the electricity supply on receiving the pending minimum charge dues and also to pay Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs) as compensation for his losses and other sufferings.

3.       The opposite party entered appearance and filed version. They denied all the allegations of the complainant as false and unfounded. According to them the complainant was not the registered owner of the service connection at the time of dismantling the connection.  The house was having a service connection vide consumer no.3894 in the name of Sri. Kalanthan, Padyakkandy, Nanmanda.  The ownership of the service connection was not transferred to the name of the complainant when he purchased the property.  Due notice was given on 10.01.2014 regarding non-payment of bills and also about dismantling of the connection in case of default. As the dues were not cleared the connection was dismantled on 24.01.2014.  Thereafter the complainant approached the Section Office with the original notice and requested for reconnection and the matter was explained to him and he was advised to submit an application for availing a fresh connection.

          4.       The opposite party further submitted that crossing of line through nearby private property was necessary and hence consent of the owner of that property was required for giving the connection. He was not ready to give the consent and so the complainant had filed a complaint before the Additional District Magistrate on 28.08.2014.  In the meantime, the complainant satisfied the requirements to take a new service connection with service wire drawn through his own property. He remitted the required amount of Rs.12,400/- on 01.10.2014 and the connection was given on the same day itself vide consumer No.39257. Though his grievance was redressed the complainant was not ready to withdraw the complaint.  The opposite parties submitted that they have acted only as per the rules and so there is no deficiency in service on their side as alleged.  Hence, they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

          5.       The complainant filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked documents Exhibits A1 to A9 on his side.  He was examined as PW1.  On the side of the opposite party copy of the affixed notice was marked as Exhibit B1. On the basis of the evidence adduced the District Commission passed the impugned order, dismissing the complaint. Aggrieved by the said order the complainant has filed this appeal.

          6.       Heard both sides. The appellant/complainant appeared in person.  He submitted that the dismantling of the electricity connection was done without proper notice to him despite the fact that he was the owner of the residential building to which the connection as per consumer No.3894 was given.  The respondent has not followed the prescribed procedure for dismantling an existing electric connection to a house.  So the connection should have been reinstated without insisting for an application for a new connection. The connection was not transferred to his name as advised by the officials of the opposite party that the connection is for the building and that transfer is not required. He submitted that the house was not occupied after the payment of bill on 17.05.2013 and no bills were paid thereafter as there was no consumption of electricity.   Though there is sufficient proof to show that the opposite party was deficient in their service the District Commission failed to appreciate the evidence on record. Hence the appellant prayed for allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the District commission and grant the reliefs sought for in the complaint.

          7.       The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that they have followed the procedures laid down for dismantling an electric connection consequent on non-payment of bills. According to him the appellant was not the registered consumer at the time of dismantling the connection.  It was in the name of Sri. Kalanthan, Padiyakkandy, Nanmanda, with consumer No.  3894.  Respondent had issued notice to the registered consumer. As there was no response from the consumer, they had affixed notice in a conspicuous place of the complainant’s house demanding payment of amount due after May 2013.  Even then   the complainant failed to remit the dues within the stipulated time period and so they had no other option but to dismantle the connection as per the rules of Supply of Electrical Energy.  They had produced the copy of the affixed notice dated 10.01.2014 (Exhibit B1).  It is stated that the due amount of Rs.348/-(Rupees Three Hundred and Forty Eight) should be paid before 22.01.2014 to avoid disconnection. As the dues were not paid, the connection was dismantled on 24.01.2014. The learned counsel further submitted that reconnection cannot be given to a person who is not the owner of the house property. He argued that the requirement of consent of the owner of the neighbouring property, through which the earlier connection was taken, is an issue to be sorted out by the appellant and the respondent cannot be blamed for any delay on account of that. The complainant had availed a fresh connection during the pendency of the complaint and hence the grievance of the appellant was already resolved. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and hence they prayed for dismissal of the appeal and confirm the order of the District Commission.

8.       We have considered the submissions on both sides and perused the records. The complaint of the appellant pertains to the dismantling of service connection by the respondent and subsequent request for re-effecting the same. The appellant/complainant alleged that the respondent refused to give reconnection of the electricity after it was dismantled consequent on default in payment of bills. The main points in the complaint are whether disconnection was in order and whether denial of reconnection was justified.

9.       Admittedly the appellant/complainant was having a service connection to his house with consumer number 3894. But it was in the name of the previous owner of the house property, Mr Kalanthan, Padiyakkandy, Nanmanda. No bills were paid by the appellant after 17.05.2013.  The respondent communicated the same to the appellant vide notice dated 10.01.2014. He did not respond to the notice and hence the service connection was dismantled on 24.01.2014 for non payment of electricity charges. It is only common knowledge that whether there is consumption or not the consumer has to pay the minimum energy charges which was not paid the appellant. It is for the consumer to ensure payment of bills in time when he is out of station. Appellant also admitted that the last bill was paid on 17.05.2013 and no bills were paid thereafter as the house was not occupied. According to the respondent they have given notice of disconnection as per rules. A prudent consumer has to be alert about payment of bills which were pending for a very long time. Inaction on the part of the appellant is the reason for disconnection and hence we are of the view that respondent cannot be held deficient in this regard.

10.     The appellant approached Executive Engineer, Balussery, for re effecting the service connection of consumer No. 3894, which was refused as per the existing rules. According to the respondent, Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2014 does not allow re-effecting of service connection. It is true that appellant/complainant was the owner of the house.  But it is a fact that the he was not the registered owner/consumer of the service connection. Ownership of the service connection was not transferred to his name while taking over the property from the previous owner. According to the appellant he is the owner of the property from 17.02.2004. It is for the property owner to change the name of the consumer in the KSEB records as and when the property is purchased. It was not transferred and the connection was not in the name of the appellant at the time of disconnection. As per the records of KSEB, the connection was in the name of previous owner Mr Kalanthan.  Evidently it was not possible to give reconnection in his name as he had no ownership interest. Appellant has no complaint that the respondents KSEB refused to transfer the name in the previous connection. His version that the KSEB officials told him that the connection can be continued in the name of the old consumer is unbelievable. Once the connection is dismantled the respondents cannot be blamed for not reinstating the connection in the name of the earlier consumer as he is no longer the owner of the house property. Had it been in the name of the appellant, they could have helped him to get reconnection. Needless to say, that the connection can neither be given in the name of the previous owner who has no interest in the property then, nor in the name of the appellant who was not the consumer at the time of disconnection. The only recourse available for the appellant was to apply for a new connection in his name, which naturally involves all usual formalities which the appellant is required to comply with. We do not find any lapse on the part of the respondent in refusing reconnection.

11.     When the appellant approached the respondent for new connection, he was asked to remit the estimated expenses. But he submitted a representation dated 20.08.2014 stating that he is not prepared to pay the amount of Rs 12,000 for the connection. Moreover, crossing of line through nearby property was necessary to provide service connection in the original route. But the owner of the said property was not ready to give permission. It is for the prospective consumer to ensure that necessary consent is obtained from the owner of the property through which the electric line goes. In this connection appellant had filed a petition before the Additional District Magistrate on 28.08.2014. Subsequently the appellant himself came forward to avail the fresh service connection through his own property and paid required amount of Rs 12,400/- on 01.10.2014 and connection was given on the same day vide consumer No. 39257. We find that the delay in giving the new connection occurred due to the delay in complying with the requirements by the appellant.

12.     The respondent submitted that the issue was already resolved during the pendency of the complaint by giving a new connection on 01.10.2014. Though grievance of the appellant was already redressed, he was not ready to withdraw the complaint. We observe that the above sequence of events happened only because of the lapse on the part of the appellant/complainant in transferring the electricity connection to his name as and when he purchased the property. The respondent is not at fault and hence the appellant is not entitled to any compensation from them.

13.     On the basis of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any error in the finding of the District Commission that there is no deficiency in service on the party of the respondent/ opposite party. We concur with their finding. There is no valid ground to interfere with the order of the District Commission and hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The order dated 05.07.2018 of the District Commission in C.C.No.432/2014 is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.

SL