Karnataka

Kolar

CC/2/2023

Nandeesh Gowda - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, BESCOM - Opp.Party(s)

07 Jul 2023

ORDER

Date of Filing: 06/01/2023

Date of Order: 07/07/2023

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, OLD D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR – 563 101.

 

Dated:07^thDAY OF JULY 2023

SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, B.Sc., B.Ed., LL.B., …… PRESIDENT

SMT. SAVITHA AIRANI, B.A.L., LL.M., …..LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO:02/2023

 

Sri. Nandeesh Gowda.

S/o. Munivenkatappa,

Aged about 55 years,

Proprietor M/s. Mukambika Stone Crushers,

Chakarasanahalli Village,

Narasapura Hobli,

Kolar Taluk.

(Rep. by Sri. A. Lakshiminarayan , Advocate)  ….  Complainant.

 

                                                                                                                - V/s –

1)  The Managing Director,

BESCOM, K.R. Circle,

Bengaluru-1.

 

2)  Asst. Executive Engineer.

BESCOM,

Kolar Rural Sub Division,

Kolar.

(Rep. by Sri. B.S. Vijaya Kumari, Advocate)   ….Opposite Parties.

 

 

-: ORDER:-

BY SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, PRESIDENT

1)     This is the complaint filed U/s 35 of the CP Act 2019 against the OPs and praying for direction to the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.7,55,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a from the date of deposit till realization of the amount and to pass such other relief as this commission deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case.

2)    The brief fact of the complaint is that, the complainant is running stone crusher unit under the name of M/s. Mukambika Stone Crushers at Chakarasanahalli Village Limits, Kolar Taluk.  Further stated that, in order to obtain electric power connection (HTA) to his unit from the OP.No.2 and thereafter, OP.No.2 visited the complainant crusher unit and after thorough inspection OP.No.2 directed to the complainant to deposit Rs.16,50,000/- (sixteen lakhs fifty thousand only) and accordingly complainant deposited the said amount to the BESCOM account on 25.01.2018 through NEFT.  It is stated that, after depositing the required amount OPs authority had issued power connection to complainant crusher unit and installed electrical meter bearing RR No.KRRHT.104ID4828454 dtd:04.11.2019.

3)  It is stated that, out of deposit amount of Rs.16,50,000/- OP.No.2 authorities have taken only Rs.14,00,000/- towards deposit amount and thereby complainant demanded the  OP.No.2 to refund the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- excessive amount received from the complainant.   It is stated that, instead of refunding of the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- OP.No.2 informed that excess amount under different heads which was not belongs to the complainant and the said fact it is not intimated to the complainant.  It is stated that, the OPs demanded the complainant to pay Rs.5,05,000/- through bill for using electric power and accordingly complainant was paid the said amount through NEFT on 04.11.2019 to this OP.No.2 authority.  It is alleged that, the amount is not credited to the electric bill of the complainant account and the same was credited to the some other persons account.  Hence it is stated that, the complainant once again approached to the OP.No.2 authority and requested and demanded to refund the excess deposit amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and electric bill amount of Rs.5,05,000/-, whereas OP.No.2 authority not complied the request of the complainant.  Hence it is stated that, complainant got issued the legal notice to the OP.No.2 authority, but despite service of notice OPs have not taken any steps to refund the deposit amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and electric bill amount of Rs.5,05,000/- hence this complaint.

4)   On issuance of notice, OPs appeared through their counsel and OP.No.2 filed its version, whereas OP.No.1 adopts the version filed by OP.No.2.  In the version, it is contended that, OP.No.2 authority not visited the complainants crusher unit and also denied the fact of direction to deposit Rs16,50,000/- to the OPs authority.  Further it is denied as false and incorrect that out of deposit amount of Rs.16,50,000/- by the complainant and the OPs have taken only Rs.14,00,000/- and they failed to refund the Rs.2,50,000/-.  And also denied that OPs credited the excess amount of Rs.2,50,000/- under different heads which is not belongs to the complainant.  However, it is admitted that complainant applied for high tension power supply (800 KVA) and OPs intimated to issue for sanctioning power supply and to deposit of Rs.14,73,880/-then the complainant deposited the amount through NEFT in favor of OP.No.2 on 21.04.2018 to an extent of amount of Rs.16,50,000/-.  It is contended that, contractor who provide service to the complainant to power supply given 3 intimation of worth of Rs.16,50,000/- as already left to BESCOM by the complainant on receipts drawn for Rs.16,50,000/-on 30.04.2018 as intimation submitted by the contractor.  It is admitted that complainant paid Rs.5,05,000/- only for using electrical power, but it is denied as false and incorrect the above said amount of Rs.5,05,000/- was credited to some other persons account.

5)    It is contended that, the complainant was paid the amount of Rs.5,05,000/- through cheque bearing No.324787 on 31.10.2019 of Vijaya Bank, White Filed Branch for electric bill for his RR No.KRRHT104 and the said amount credited to the above RR No. of the complainant.  Further OPs denied the fact of issuing legal notice and due service of the notice on them.  Further contended that, the present complaint is filed to harass the opponent and above said grounds, OPs prays to dismiss the complaint.

6)   In order to prove the case of the parties and both the parties filed their affidavit evidence along with documents supporting their case. 

7)    On the basis of the pleading of the parties the following points will do arise for our consideration.

1. Whether the complainant proves that, he had deposited Rs.16,50,000/- out of which OP.No.2 authority has taken  14,00,000/-only towards deposited the amount for obtaining electrical power supply and the OPs collected Rs.5,05,000/- towards electric bill and credited to some other persons account and thereby OPs failed to refund the excessive amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.5,05,000/-which amounts to deficient in their service?
2. Whether the complaint is entitle for the relief as sought in the complaint?
3. What order?

 

8)    Heard the arguments of the both the parties, perused the evidence placed on record.  Our answers to the above points are as follows.

POINT NO. (1):-  In the affirmative.

POINT NO. (2):-  In the partly affirmative.

POINT NO. (3):- As per the final order

                          for the following.

                                    REASONS

9) POINT No. (1) & (2):  On perusal of the pleadings of the parties, and the evidence placed on record it is undisputed facts that the complainant in order to obtained the electrical power connection for his stone crushing unit paid Rs.16,50,000/- NEFT to the OPs authorities.  Also for electrical consumption charges complainant paid the bill to an extent of Rs.5,05,000/- to the OPs authorities. 

10)   The specific allegation of the complainant is that, the OPs accounted for Rs.14,00,000/- out of Rs.16,50,000/- and the excess amount of Rs.2,50,000/-failed to refund to the complainant and on enquiry it is learned that, the excess amount in question credited to some other account.  Further alleged that, out of Rs.5,05,000/- paid towards electrical consumption but not credited to the account of the complainant.  Hence the complainant alleges against the OPs and filed this complaint.

11)   Per contra, OPs during the course of arguments as well as in their written statement admitted the payments made by the complainant and issuance of bill to an extent of Rs.14,73,880/- out of Rs.16,50,000/- and submitted that, there is a (mediator)contractor and the process is done by him for electrical power installation and hence as per his instructions the remaining amount Rs.1,76,120/- out of which about Rs.23,000/- credited to the account of Venkat Reddy and Rs.1,52,000/- to the account of N. Krishnappa.  It is worth to mention that, when the complainant directly credited Rs.16,50,000/- to the account of the OPs and it is the duty of the OPs after adjusting the amount of Rs.14,73,880/- and the remaining balance shall be payable directly to the account of the complainant, whereas the OPs submitted that, as per the instructions of the contractor(mediator), the difference amount was adjusted to the above said Sri. Venkat Reddy and Sri. N. Krishnappa, it is obviously contrary to law and principles of natural justice.  Hence the act of non-refunding the excessive amount collected to the complainant and crediting the same to some others account is clearly deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  However, the OPs fairly admitting the said fact by filing a memo.  The details of business transaction to letter dated:06.02.2023 and on perusal of the same it clearly discloses that, out of Rs.16,50,000/-OPs received Rs.14,73,880/- and remaining excessive amount wrongly credited to the accounts of Sri. Venkat Reddy to an extent of Rs.23,628/- and Sri. N. Krishnappa to an extent of Rs.1,52,492/-.  Hence the OPs committed deficiency in service.  Under the circumstances we deem it just and proper to direct the OPs to refund the excess amount of Rs.1,76,120/-to the complainant with interest @ 6% pa from the date of payment till realization. 

12)  Further, the complainant alleges that, he had paid Rs.5,05,000/- towards electrical consumption charges but OPs only entitled for Rs.2,79,340/- and remaining balance is adjusted to some other accounts.  Per contra, OPs submitted that, though complainant Rs.5,05,000/- and after the deducting the bill amount of Rs. 2,79,340/- towards electrical consumption charges and subsequently the excess amount adjusted for subsequent billing charges in respect of the RR.No. Of the complainant that is KRRHT-104.  Further the OPs also filed the dates of adjustment of the differential amount to the above said RR.No. of the complainant.  Hence the details given in the bill through letter dated.06.02.2023 is acceptable one.  Further the complainant to falsify the evidence placed on record by the OPs did not place any cogent evidence.  Under these circumstances, the evidence placed by the OPs regarding the excess amount paid out of Rs.5,05,000/- and the remaining amount adjusted to the account of the complainant is acceptable one.  Hence complainant is not entitled for the relief as sought in the complaint for refund of Rs.5,05,000/-.

13)    In the light of above discussion we reached to conclusion that, complainant proved deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and thereby complainant is entitled for relief only to an extent of Rs.1,76,120/- along with interest @ 6%pa from the date of deposit till its realization. Also timely non refunding the amount to the complainant and made the complainant to wander from pillar to post and ends to filing of the personal complaint, hence complainant is also entitled for the cost of the proceedings to the extent of Rs.3,000/-.  Accordingly we answered the Point No. (1) In the affirmative and Point No. (2) In the partly affirmative.

14)  POINT NO. (3):-   On the basis of answering the Point No. (1) & (2) and the reasons assigned, thereon we proceed to pass the following.

ORDER

1. The complaint is partly allowed with cost.
2. The OP.No. (1) & (2) are directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,76,120/- along with interest @ 6%p.a from the date of deposit till its realization.
3. The OP.No. (1) & (2) also directed to pay cost of the proceedings of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant.
4. Further OP.No. (1) & (2) directed to comply the Orders of this Commission within 30 days and submit the compliance report within 45 days from the date of the order.
5. Send a copy of this order to all the parties to   the proceedings at free of cost.

       (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected   and then pronounced by us on this 07^th DAY OF JULY 2023)

 

 

 

 

               LADY MEMBER                     PRESIDENT