Date of Filing : 06.12.2010
Date of Order : 28.01.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR
Dated 28th day of JANUARY 2012
PRESENT
Sri. T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH …….. PRESIDENT
Sri. T.NAGARAJA …….. MEMBER
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA …….. MEMBER
Consumer Complaint No. 234 / 2010
Sri. B.K. Nagaraj,
S/o. Late B.S. Kichhaiah Setty,
Aged about 56 years,
R/at: No. 686, “Nagaraja Nilaya”,
Old Extension, Behind BESCOM,
Kolar – 563 101.
(By Sri. K.N. Nanjunda Gowda, Adv.) ……. Complainant
V/s.
1. The Executive Engineer,
KEB, BESCOM,
Kolar – 563 101.
2. Sri. H. Afroz Baig,
S/o. Mustafa Baig, Aged about 37 years,
Nadiya Fashion Ladies Tailors,
Ganesha Gudi Beedi,
Aralapete, Katharipalya,
Kolar – 563 101.
(By Sri. B.S. Vijaykumar, Adv. for OP1)
(By Sri. R. Manjunatha, Adv. for OP2) …… Opposite Parties
ORDER
By Sri. T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH, PRESIDENT
This Complaint is filed by the Complainant u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Complainant is a owner of the building called “Nagaraj Building” and he had let out the building to the OP No. 2 on 27.07.2009. The premises was having electric connection and it was the responsibility of the OP2 to pay the electricity charges to OP1. OP1 is a supplier of electricity to that premises. Complainant contends that OP2 has vacated the premises on 13.01.2010 and he has not paid electricity charges for the entire period of his occupation. It was the responsibility of the OP1 to collect the electricity charges from OP2 and that has not been done. For non payment of electricity charges, electricity has been disconnected to the premises and Complainant could not re-let the premises and thereby he has suffered loss of rent. OP1 has failed to collect the electricity charges from OP2 and the premises was vacant. Hence, it is prayed that OP2 may be directed to pay loss of rent of 8 months amounting to Rs.48,000/- and it is prayed to direct OP2 to pay loss of 2 months rent of Rs.12,000/- and it is also prayed to direct OP1 to restore electricity supply and to fix the electrical meter to that premises.
3. OP1 has filed version contending that even at the time of letting out of the premises to OP2, there was arrears of electricity charges and several times Complainant was reminded to pay the same. OP1 has no relationship with OP2 and there is no responsibility to collect electricity charges from OP2. Complainant was the consumer and he was liable to pay electricity Bill. As the Complainant has failed to pay the electricity Bill, supply has been disconnected. Because of it only, Complainant is responsible if any loss has been caused to him. On 08.01.2011, Complainant has paid balance electricity Bill of Rs.8,752/- and then OP1 has re-fixed the Electricity Meter to the property. Hence, Complaint is not maintainable.
4. OP2 has filed his version and contended that Complainant has not availed any service from OP2 and because of it Complaint is not maintainable. The allegation that OP2 has not paid the electricity charges is denied. It is stated that on 13.01.2010 OP2 has paid dues to the Complainant as full settlement and endorsement was also made in the rent agreement about it. Hence, OP2 is not responsible for any event relating to that premises. Complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. The points that arise for consideration are as under:
(1) Whether the Complainant proves alleged deficiency in service by the Ops?
(2) What order ?
6. Our findings on the above points are as under:
(1) Negative
(2) As per final order
REASONS
7. Point No. 1 – In our opinion, there is no cause of action against OP1, because no service was required to be rendered by OP1. There is no allegation of deficiency of service against OP1 except disconnection of the electricity supply for non payment of electricity charges. When the Complainant has taken electricity supply, he is bound to pay the electricity charges and if it is not paid OP1 will be entitled to disconnect the electricity supply or remove the electricity meter. Hence, if the electricity supply is disconnected for non payment of electricity charges, it cannot be said to be deficiency of service. Hence, there is no merit in the allegations against OP1. It is also stated by OP1 that subsequently i.e., on 08.01.2011 Complainant has paid balance electricity charges and electricity meter has been re-fixed. These allegations are not disputed. Hence, after payment of electricity charges, electricity supply has been restored by OP1. Hence, Complainant cannot have any grievance against OP1.
8. In our opinion, there is no question of deficiency in service by OP2 because no service was required to be rendered by OP2. OP2 was only tenant of the Complainant and he was required to pay electricity charges. If OP2 has not paid electricity charges, the Complainant may recover the same from OP2 according to Law and that cannot be considered as consumer dispute. Complainant cannot be called as consumer under OP2 for any reasons. Hence, Complaint is not maintainable against OP2. Hence, we hold that Complainant failed to prove alleged deficiency in service. Hence, this point is held against Complainant.
9. Point No. 2 – In view of the finding on point No. 1, Complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence, we pass the following:
ORDER
Complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 28th day of January 2012.
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA T.RAJASHEKHARAIAH
Member Member President
SSS
