DATE OF FILING: 03.08.2011
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 28th day of October, 2011
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No. 168/2011
Between
Complainant : Somasekharan,
Suryasoma House,
Nellikkuzhi Kara,
Kothamangalam,
Ernakulam District.
(By Adv:M.M.Lissy)
And
Opposite Parties : 1. The Executive Engineer,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Investigation Field Division,
Munnar – 685 612. 3. The Executive Engineer,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Head Works & Tunnel Division,
Pallivasal Extension Scheme,
Munnar – 685 612.
(By Adv: C.K.Babu)
O R D E R
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
The complainant is working as a Lineman in BSNL. On 24th March, 2006 the complainant entered into an agreement with the 2nd opposite party in which the family quarters of the 2nd opposite party at Munnar as F1-C(Family) was provided for the complainant in the year 2006-2007 with a rent of Rs.600/- with Rs.50/- as water charges. The complainant deposited Rs.2,500/- for availing the same and he resided there for 4 months. At that time rent, water charges and electricity charges were promptly paid by the complainant. It is also entered in the register kept in the opposite party's office, but the receipts were not issued to the complainant. Electricity was not supplied at the time when the complainant started to reside there and on 19.09.2006 for changing the energy meter, he paid Rs.300/- for the same. But the meter was not changed by the opposite party even written application was given by him to the opposite party. On 22.02.2007 a letter was issued from the 3rd opposite party to the complainant directing to vacate the quarters provided to the complainant in order to provide accommodation to the staff of the opposite party. So the complainant vacated the quarters on 30.03.2007 and never the complainant made any dues in the bills of the quarters. On 13.02.2008 a letter was issued from the 3rd opposite party to the complainant stating that there is a dues of Rs.12,035/- from the complainant. On the very next day itself, the complainant enquired about the same in the opposite party's office and made belief to the opposite party that there is no arrears from the complainant. But on 22.06.2011, a recovery notice was issued to the Divisional Engineer, BSNL where the complainant is working, in order to recover the rent arrears Rs.27,105.20 from the salary of the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to pay any amount as rent, electricity charges or water charges. So this petition is filed for cancelling the demand notice issued by the opposite party.
2. As per the written version filed by the 3rd opposite party on behalf of the Ist and 2nd opposite parties, it is stated that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party and he is only a lessee of the opposite party. The complainant occupied quarter No.F1-C located in Munnar Colony for his residential accommodation consequent to the execution of an agreement between KSEB and employer of the complainant. On perusing the available records, it is revealed that the tenant has defaulted the payment of rent right from the beginning of the occupancy of the quarter. The payment of rent for the months April 2006 and May 2006 were remitted on 5.06.2006 with a fine of Rs.15/- vide Receipt No.133 of Book 1 marked as 2 and that for the months of June 2006 and July 2006 was remitted on 10.08.2006 with a fine of Rs.46/- vide Receipt No.187 of Book 1 marked as 3 and he had defaulted payment of rent since August 2006. The complainant has remitted current charges during the period 4/06 to 7/06 which shows the power supply was available in the quarters during that period. A request of the complainant to change the energy meter was submitted on 30.11.2006 and the officials of the KSEB has taken urgent steps to install a new energy meter at the earliest. At the time of vacating the quarters on 30.03.2007, an amount of Rs.9872.88 was due to the KSEB from the tenant. This amount was calculated charging penal interest @ 2% for the defaulted payment. The rent and water charges fixed were tentative and liable to change from time to time and KSEB Vide B.O(FM)No.2813/06(GDC 03.01.2004) dated 13.11.2006 have enhanced the rent for quarters with effect from 13.11.2006 and consequently a letter intimating the enhancement of rent with effect from 13.11.2006 was forwarded to the tenants vide letter NO.IDFM-DB-16/2006-07/644 dated 28.11.2006 is also produced. A demand notice to remit the rental arrear due to KSEB was sent to the complainant vide letter No.H&T/PES/DB-3/06-07 dated 18.06.2007 (Registered letter No.RLAD A963 dated 21.06.2007 of Munnar P.O). A second demand notice was sent to the complainant vide letter No.H&T/PES/DB-3/2006-07/766 dated 13.02.2008 to remit an amount of Rs.12,035/-. The 3rd demand notice was sent to the complainant vide letter No.PES/H&T/B&R/AE 1/2010-11/DB4C/79 dated 28.01.2011 vide Registered letter No.RLADA 439A of Munnar Post Office dated 4.02.2011. But the letter was returned with remarks absent intimation dated 5.02.2011 is also produced. So the rental arrears due from the complainant calculated @ 2% penal interest for the defaulted payment in 2008 January was Rs.12,035/- and hence the second notice was sent to the defaulter. So there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.
3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
4. No oral evidence produced by both the parties. Heard.
5. The POINT :- As per the complainant, he was residing at the opposite party's quarters in the year 2006-2007 while he was working as a Lineman in the telephone exchange, Munnar of BSNL. He resided there only 4 months, but he remitted the entire rent, water and electricity arrears promptly and there is no dues for the same. But the opposite party issued a recovery notice which is not entitled to pay by the complainant. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the complainant was residing there upto 30.03.2007 and it was also admitted by the complainant that he vacated the premises on 30.03.2007 while a notice was received from the 3rd opposite party to vacate the quarters on 22.02.2007. But the complainant had defaulted to pay the rent arrears. As per the order of the KSEB, they have enhanced the rent with effect from 13.11.2006 and consequently a letter was issued to the complainant for the enhancement of the rent. Two other demand notices were also issued to the complainant. But the complainant never paid the same. So they are entitled to get 2% penal interest for the defaulted payment and so that recovery proceedings were initiated for Rs.12,035/-. The third demand notice was not at all received by the complainant.
On perusing the complaint, it is revealed that the complainant himself stated that he was residing only for 4 months in the quarters and he paid all the rent, water charges and current charges promptly and he also stated that he was residing there in the year 2006-2007 with the agreement created on 24th March 2006. It is also stated in the complaint itself that he vacated the premises on 30.03.2007 as per the notice received from the 3rd opposite party on 22.02.2007. So the contention of the complainant is not at all believable. As per the opposite party, the rent was enhanced so that the complainant never paid the same. Notices were issued to the complainant by the opposite party intimating the enhancement of the rent as per the order of the KSEB dated 13.11.2006. So we think that the matter concerning this case is absolutely a dispute regarding the payment of rent arrears and it is a breach of agreement between the complainant and the opposite party, which is a lease agreement. The complainant is only a lesser of the opposite party and the subject matter of this case will not comes under the purview of Section 2d of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, because the complainant is not a consumer. So this petition is absolutely not maintainable before this Forum. The dispute between the lesser and lessee can be adjudicated in appropriate authority. So the complainant can approach appropriate authority for further remedy.
Hence the petition dismissed. No cost is ordered against the complainant.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of October, 2011
Sd/-
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
Sd/- SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of Complainant :
Nil
On the side of Opposite Parties :
Nil
Exhibits:
On the side of Complainant:
Nil
On the side of Opposite Parties :
Nil
