By. Sri. Jose. V. Thannikode, President:-
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties not to disconnect the electricity supply given to the complainant and to pay cost and compensation due the issuance of a disconnection notice issued to him.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant is the consumer under the opposite party in consumer No.22545 of KSEB Meppadi section Wayanad district. She got the said connection under OYC scheme on 27.12.2013 on remittance of Rs.35,160/- with opposite party No.2 on production of her identity card. While so on 28.01.2014 the opposite party No.2 served a notice to the complainant directing her to submit the Possession Certificate and Ownership Certificate of her property and house in which the said connection was effected within 7 days, failing which it is intimated that the electricity connection will be disconnected. The complainant says that the act of the opposite party is nothing but unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. Aggrieved by this, the complainant filed this complaint to not to disconnect the electricity supply and to direct the opposite parties to pay cost and compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- for their deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
3. Notice were served to opposite parties and opposite parties entered appearance and filed version stating that the above complaint is not maintainable either on law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed in limine. M/s. Harison Malayalam Limited who had made objection in providing service connection to the petitioner is necessary party to the proceedings, Hence, above complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The dispute is regarding the ownership and possession of the property. As a forum for redressal of consumer dispute, it is humbly submitted that the Honorable Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the case. Moreover there was no objection from the part of M/s. Malayalam Harison Limited, while effecting the service connection to the complainant on 27.12.2013. In the letter dated 28.12.2013 and 30.12.2013 it is reported that Kerala State Electricity Board Limited had drawn electric line and effected service connection through the property belonging to them and a case is pending on the same issue vide WP(C) No.7290/2013 of the Honorable High Court of Kerala. Hence this Forum could not entertain this case on the issue connected with the case pending as above. If the complainant has any grievance she might have approached the same Court Wherein issue is still pending. Based on the above facts, the complaint may be dismissed in limine. Save those that are expressly admitted herein, these opposite parties deny all the averments contained in the complaint. It is true that the complainant had submitted an application for effecting service connection for domestic purpose and a service connection for domestic purpose was effected in the name of the petitioner as consumer No.22545 under Kerala State Electricity Board, Electrical Section, Meppadi. The connection was given based on the claim of the complainant that the land is belonging to her and the same is in her possession. The aforesaid electricity service connection was registered as per the application and documents submitted by the complainant, test/commissioning report and as per the simplified service connection procedures of the Kerala State Electricity Board dated 01.08.2011. The complainant had also executed an indemnity bond allowing the Board to disconnect and dismantle the service connection in case of any disputes and claims raised by any third party and to compensate the entire loss or expenses incurred by Kerala State Electricity Board on removal of the service connection, said electricity connection was effected based on the agreement, the undertaking given by the complainant that the land belonging to her and she is in possession of the land and also based on the indemnity bond. The electricity connection was registered on payment of the cost estimate Rs.34,500/- on 23.12.2013 by the complainant and the connection was effected on 27.12.2013 after constructing overhead electric lines along the existing road side.
4. While so, the Senior Manager, Harisons Malayalam Limited had vide letters dated 28 12 2013 and 30 12 2013 intimated the officials of the Kerala State Electricity Board that a case is pending before the Honorable High Court of Kerala as WP(C) No.7290/2013 with respect to the property wherein the electricity connection is effected and had informed to remove the electric lines constructed for supplying electricity to the complainant. The opposite parties are not aware of the above case and its details. In order to clarify the genuineness of the claim raised by Harrisons Malayalam Limited, the Kerala State Electricity Board had vide letter dated 18.01.2014 requested the Company to produce the possession certificate with regard to the property in order to substantiate their claim. The Board had also vide notice dated 28.01.2014 requested the complainant to produce the possession certificate in her name with respect to the land within 7 days of receipt of the notice in order to avoid disconnection and dismantling of the aforesaid service connection effected. The said notice was served on the complainant on the basis of the written complaint and claim of M/s. Harrisons Malayalam Limited and also in accordance with the provisions of the terms and conditions of the service connection agreement accepted and executed by the complainant while registering service connection. As per regulation 21 (7) & 21 (8) of the Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005 if the service connection is bound to be obtained by Malpractice Board has the right to disconnect the connection so obtained. The complainant has not responded to the aforesaid notice nor has she produced the possession certificate to substantiate her claim and to satisfy the rules and guidelines in force regarding effecting of domestic service connection by the Board and, avoid disconnection of electric supply. In response to the Kerala State Electricity Board's aforementioned letter dated 18.01.2014, Harrisons Malayalam Limited had produced copies of thandaper register, Basic tax register, land tax receipts and also the copy of the order of the Honorable High Court of Kerala in WP(C) No.7290/2013 to justify their claim over the land wherein the electricity connection has been given as above Apart from the above, Kerala State Electricity Board has requested the Village Officer, Kottapady on 10.03.2014 to intimate the actual owner in possession of the aforesaid land in dispute. It is respectfully submitted that the electricity connection was given to the complainant on the basis of the application and documents given by her and also on the basis of the undertaking given by her that the land is under her possession. The complainant had also represented that she will be producing the ownership certificate later, but she has not done so. As stated above, the complainant had also executed service connection agreement with Kerala State Electricity Board agreeing that the service connection can be disconnected and dismantled based on any future claims or disputes raised by a third party at a later stage and had also agreed to compensate the loss and expenses to be incurred by the Board to remove the service connection. The disconnection notice as stated above was issued to the complainant based on the written objection/claim put forward by M/s. Harrisons Malayalam Limited. In spite of specific demand by the Board, the complainant has not produced the documents showing her possession, over the property. On the basis of the objections and claim raised, unless and until the complainant furnishes proof of her possession over the properties, the opposite parties have no other way other than to disconnect and dismantle the electricity connection. Though, the complainant is aware of all the above facts, she has filed the above complaint suppressing the same. Since there is a dispute with regard to the ownership and possession of the properties, the remedy available to the complainant to a approach the concerned Civil Court. Moreover, this Honorable Forum has no jurisdiction to decide matters relating to possession and ownership of properties as it cannot be treated as a consumer complaint. Hence prays to dismiss the complaint.
4. Complainant filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the complaint and she is examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A5 is marked. Ext.A1 is the warning notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant which shows that “it was a demand to produce the possession certificate of her land and ownership certificate of the house as per the terms of agreement executed between the complainant and opposite party in the stamp paper within seven days. Ext.A2 is the Receipt of remittance of OYC scheme for Rs.34,500/- and other fees. Ext.A3 is the application form for the connection. Ext.A4 is the location sketch. Ext.A5 is the office endorsement of the Ext.A4. In the cross-examination, the opposite parties has marked Ext.B1 and B2 document after confronting PW1. Ext.B1 is the Indemnity bond executed between the complainant and opposite party. Wherein it is undertaken by the complainant that “till now the house is not allotted a building number from the Panchayath. As per the new order of the KSEB GO(Rt) No.145/2011/DD dated 06.07.2011, she is ready to produce the documents which is demanded by opposite party at any time. Otherwise undertake to face any consequences thereby and further under takes to indemnity all the loss and damages if caused to the opposite parties and also stated that no objection for dismantle the connection. Ext.B2 is the indemnity bond executed between the complainant and opposite party. In the deposition the PW1 also admitted the Ext.B1 and B2.
5. From the above readings the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side
of opposite parties?
2. Relief and cost.
6. Point No.1:- On perusing all the documents and evidences. We are in the opinion that the above connection was given on the undertaking of Ext.B1 and B2 agreement. After getting the connection and when demanded by the opposite party to submit the required document, the complainant turning around and approached the Forum for a relief supressing the actual fact. It is not fair from the side of complainant. We feel that it is an abuse of process of law. Hence the Point No.1 is found accordingly.
7. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found against the complainant, the complainant is liable to pay compensatory cost to the opposite parties and the opposite parties are entitled for the same.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed on compensatory cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) to the opposite parties. The complainant shall comply the Order within one month from the date of receipt of this Order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 26th day of June 2015.
Date of Filing:05.02.2014. PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Hajira. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Notice. Dt:28.01.2014.
A2. Copy of Receipt.
A3. Copy of Application for Electricity Connection. Dt:20.12.2013.
A4. Copy of Location Sketch.
A5. Copy of Office endorsement of Ext.A4.
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
B1. Copy of Indemnity Bond. Dt:23.12.2013.
B2. Copy of Indemnity Bond. Dt:23.12.2013.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
a/-
