Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

283/2003

V.Jayadhar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Secretary - Opp.Party(s)

15 Dec 2008

ORDER


Thiruvananthapuram
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,Vazhuthacaud
consumer case(CC) No. 283/2003

V.Jayadhar 		...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

The Secretary
Asst Executive Engineer
The executive Engineer		 ...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Smt. Beena Kumari. A 2. Smt. S.K.Sreela 3. Sri G. Sivaprasad

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM


 

PRESENT:


 

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER


 

O.P. No. 283/2003 Filed on 25..07..2003

Dated: 15..12..2008


 

Complainant:


 

V. Jayadhar, Sreevihar, 145,Mathruka Nagar, Uliyakovil P.O., Kollam- 691 019.


 

Opposite parties:


 


 

1. Kerala State Electricity Board, represented by the Secretary, KSEB., Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.

      1. The Executive Engineer, KSEB., Electrical Major Division, Kulavikkonam, Nedumangad, Thiruvananthapuram.

      2. The Asst. Executive Engineer, KSEB., Electrical Major Section, Palode, Nanniyode, Pacha – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.


 

(By Adv. B. Sakthidharan Nair)


 

This O.P having been heard on 29..11..2008, the Forum on 15..12..2008 delivered the following:

ORDER


 

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that the complainant was allotted with a staff quarter by the Director of Tropical Botanic Garden and Research Institute, Palode and it was occupied on 04..12..2000. The electricity supplied to the said quarter was through three phase supply connection under consumer No.3337 and at the time of occupation of the said quarter, the meter was not working and three phase supply was not given. The meter was faulty which was replaced on 21..06..2001 and resumed three phase supply on 19..03..2002. Opposite parties collected the three phase tariff from 04..12..2000 to 19..03..2002, without giving three phase supply. Opposite parties did not reimburse the excess tariff collected from the complainant during the period from 04..12..2000 to 19..03..2002, even after repeated representations sent by the complainant to the opposite parties. The action of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service and hence this complaint claiming refund of Rs.1,494/- with interest and Rs.5,000/- as compensation and cost of the complaint.


 

2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite parties. The consumer No.3337 was given to Dr. A.N. Namboothiri, The Director, Tropical Botanical Garden and Research Institute, Palode. It was a three phase service connection given to him 15 years back with a connected load of 9060 watts. The opposite parties have also given service connection to the nearest quarters with consumer No.3336, 3338 & 3339 respectively to the same consumer with connected load 9060 watts. Opposite parties giving service connection on the receipt of completion report and singing of the agreement between the consumer and KSEB. The said agreement was for three phase connection. The energy meter installed is also for three phase meter with meter No.991876. Thus complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties. The real consumer has not given any authority to the complainant to file the present complaint. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. Dr.A.N. Namboothiri, The Director of Tropical Botanical Garden and Research Institute, Palode is a necessary party. As per clause 37 of the condition of Supply of Electrical Energy the responsibility of the Board for giving supply is upto the cut out areas. The opposite parties are unconcerned about how the supply was distributed to a specific area of quarters. The consumer's responsibility is to correct the defective wiring within their premises. The Asst. Engineer, Electrical Section, Palode visited the said premises and physically verified the meter and allied equipments. On verification it was found that complainant was getting three phases in the outgoing side of the three phase meter. This means the three phase supply are available in the cut out phases installed in the premises. Opposite parties responsibility only to give supply upto the cut out fuses only. No excess amount was collected during the period from 04..12..2002 to 09..03..2003. The bills are prepared as per the tariff order issued by the KSEB. No untold hardship and sorrows caused to the complainant. Complainant has no cause of action and the complaint is a frivolous and vexatious one filed with the ulterior motive to gain easy money from a public utility service. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost.


 

        1. The points that would arise for consideration are:

      1. Whether the complainant is a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act?

      2. Whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party?

      3. Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

      4. Reliefs and costs?

4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and marked Exts. P1 to P8. Complainant has been cross examined by the opposite parties. In rebuttal 3rd opposite party has been examined and cross examined by the complainant.


 

5. Points (i) to (iv): It has been the case of the complainant that the complainant was allotted with a staff quarter by the Director of the Tropical Botanic Garden and Research Institute, Palode and it was occupied on 04..12..2000 and that the electricity supplied to the said quarter was through three phase supply under consumer No.3337 and that at the time of occupation, the meter was not working, three phase supply was not given, but collected three phase tariff. It has been contended by the complainant that opposite parties have replaced the faulty meter on 21..06..2001 and resumed three phase supply on 19..03..2002, and that opposite parties collected three phase tariff from 04..12..2000 to 19.03..2002 without giving three phase supply. It is submitted that opposite parties have collected excess charge to the tune of Rs. 1,494/- from the complainant and even after repeated requests, opposite parties did not re-imburse the said amount. Main thrust of argument advanced by the opposite parties was to the effect that complainant is not a consumer and the consumer No.3337 was given to Dr. A.N. Namboothiri, the Director, Tropical Garden and Research Institute, Palode and it was three phase connection having a registered authorised load of 9060 watts and there was no need to restrict such a connection to single phase to a particular person and that consumer is bound to pay the three phase minimum of 2000 units bi-monthly even though the consumed units were less as per the Gazette Notification published by Government as Vol. 44 dated 14..05..1999. The submission by the opposite parties was that there was no lapse on the part of opposite parties and that opposite parties have not collected any excess amount from the complainant. On perusal of records and on hearing the parties we gather that the complainant who claims to be an occupant of the said staff quarter and where the electricity has been already made available by the opposite parties, the meter in question does not stand in his name. It appears that the same stands in the name of the Director, Tropical Botanical Garden and Research Institute. It is pertinent to note that the service connection given is a three phase connection and that the agreement executed by the Director, Tropical Botanical Garden and Research Institute, Palode is for three phase connection. The said service connection given to him was 15 years back with a connected load of 9060 watts. It is submitted by the opposite parties that opposite parties had also given connection to the nearest quarters with consumer Nos.3336 (3 phase), 3338 (3 phase), 3339 (3 phase) to the same consumer, the Director of Tropical Botanical Garden and Research Institute with connected load in the year 1988. Further the said consumer has not been made a party in the complaint. Hence the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite parties. Opposite parties have made reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Keshav Babu Tare Vs. Executive Engineer, MSEB and another reported in 1 (2004) CPJ 262 wherein it was held that even if the complainant is occupier of premises, if the meter not stands in the name of complainant, complainant is not a consumer. In the instant case, since the meter of the Electricity Board not stands in the name of the complainant he could not hold to be a consumer of the Electricity Board under the Rules. Since complainant is not a consumer and consumer has not been made a party in the complaint, we do not consider other points under discussion. As far this complaint is concerned we find no merits therein.


 

In the result, complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.


 

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.


 

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 15th day of December, 2008.


 


 

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.


 

BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

 


 

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER


 

ad.


 

 

O.P.No.283/2003

APPENDIX


 

  1. Complainants' witness:

PW1 : Jayadhar


 

  1. Complainants' documents:


 

P1 : Photocopy of order dated 17..08..2000

P2 : " of letter dated 11..06..2001 issued to the opposite parties by the complainant.

P3 : " dated 15..03..2002 "

P4 : " dated 10..10..2002 "

P5series : Electricity bill of Rs.216, 290, 142, 257 etc.


 

P6 : Photocopy of acknowledgment card (oneside) dt. 15..06..2001


 

P7 : " of acknowledgment card (otherside) dt.13.06.01


 

P8 : Copy of Quarter Occupation Report dt. 5.12.2000


 

  1. Opposite parties' witness:

 

DW1 : Shihabudeen

     


 

  1. Opposite parties' documents: NIL


 


 

PRESIDENT


 

ad.

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM


 

PRESENT:


 

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER


 

O.P. No. 283/2003 Filed on 25..07..2003

Dated: 15..12..2008


 

Complainant:


 

V. Jayadhar, Sreevihar, 145,Mathruka Nagar, Uliyakovil P.O., Kollam- 691 019.


 

Opposite parties:


 


 

1. Kerala State Electricity Board, represented by the Secretary, KSEB., Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.

      1. The Executive Engineer, KSEB., Electrical Major Division, Kulavikkonam, Nedumangad, Thiruvananthapuram.

      2. The Asst. Executive Engineer, KSEB., Electrical Major Section, Palode, Nanniyode, Pacha – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.


 

(By Adv. B. Sakthidharan Nair)


 

This O.P having been heard on 29..11..2008, the Forum on 15..12..2008 delivered the following:

ORDER


 

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that the complainant was allotted with a staff quarter by the Director of Tropical Botanic Garden and Research Institute, Palode and it was occupied on 04..12..2000. The electricity supplied to the said quarter was through three phase supply connection under consumer No.3337 and at the time of occupation of the said quarter, the meter was not working and three phase supply was not given. The meter was faulty which was replaced on 21..06..2001 and resumed three phase supply on 19..03..2002. Opposite parties collected the three phase tariff from 04..12..2000 to 19..03..2002, without giving three phase supply. Opposite parties did not reimburse the excess tariff collected from the complainant during the period from 04..12..2000 to 19..03..2002, even after repeated representations sent by the complainant to the opposite parties. The action of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service and hence this complaint claiming refund of Rs.1,494/- with interest and Rs.5,000/- as compensation and cost of the complaint.


 

2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite parties. The consumer No.3337 was given to Dr. A.N. Namboothiri, The Director, Tropical Botanical Garden and Research Institute, Palode. It was a three phase service connection given to him 15 years back with a connected load of 9060 watts. The opposite parties have also given service connection to the nearest quarters with consumer No.3336, 3338 & 3339 respectively to the same consumer with connected load 9060 watts. Opposite parties giving service connection on the receipt of completion report and singing of the agreement between the consumer and KSEB. The said agreement was for three phase connection. The energy meter installed is also for three phase meter with meter No.991876. Thus complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties. The real consumer has not given any authority to the complainant to file the present complaint. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. Dr.A.N. Namboothiri, The Director of Tropical Botanical Garden and Research Institute, Palode is a necessary party. As per clause 37 of the condition of Supply of Electrical Energy the responsibility of the Board for giving supply is upto the cut out areas. The opposite parties are unconcerned about how the supply was distributed to a specific area of quarters. The consumer's responsibility is to correct the defective wiring within their premises. The Asst. Engineer, Electrical Section, Palode visited the said premises and physically verified the meter and allied equipments. On verification it was found that complainant was getting three phases in the outgoing side of the three phase meter. This means the three phase supply are available in the cut out phases installed in the premises. Opposite parties responsibility only to give supply upto the cut out fuses only. No excess amount was collected during the period from 04..12..2002 to 09..03..2003. The bills are prepared as per the tariff order issued by the KSEB. No untold hardship and sorrows caused to the complainant. Complainant has no cause of action and the complaint is a frivolous and vexatious one filed with the ulterior motive to gain easy money from a public utility service. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost.


 

        1. The points that would arise for consideration are:

      1. Whether the complainant is a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act?

      2. Whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party?

      3. Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

      4. Reliefs and costs?

4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and marked Exts. P1 to P8. Complainant has been cross examined by the opposite parties. In rebuttal 3rd opposite party has been examined and cross examined by the complainant.


 

5. Points (i) to (iv): It has been the case of the complainant that the complainant was allotted with a staff quarter by the Director of the Tropical Botanic Garden and Research Institute, Palode and it was occupied on 04..12..2000 and that the electricity supplied to the said quarter was through three phase supply under consumer No.3337 and that at the time of occupation, the meter was not working, three phase supply was not given, but collected three phase tariff. It has been contended by the complainant that opposite parties have replaced the faulty meter on 21..06..2001 and resumed three phase supply on 19..03..2002, and that opposite parties collected three phase tariff from 04..12..2000 to 19.03..2002 without giving three phase supply. It is submitted that opposite parties have collected excess charge to the tune of Rs. 1,494/- from the complainant and even after repeated requests, opposite parties did not re-imburse the said amount. Main thrust of argument advanced by the opposite parties was to the effect that complainant is not a consumer and the consumer No.3337 was given to Dr. A.N. Namboothiri, the Director, Tropical Garden and Research Institute, Palode and it was three phase connection having a registered authorised load of 9060 watts and there was no need to restrict such a connection to single phase to a particular person and that consumer is bound to pay the three phase minimum of 2000 units bi-monthly even though the consumed units were less as per the Gazette Notification published by Government as Vol. 44 dated 14..05..1999. The submission by the opposite parties was that there was no lapse on the part of opposite parties and that opposite parties have not collected any excess amount from the complainant. On perusal of records and on hearing the parties we gather that the complainant who claims to be an occupant of the said staff quarter and where the electricity has been already made available by the opposite parties, the meter in question does not stand in his name. It appears that the same stands in the name of the Director, Tropical Botanical Garden and Research Institute. It is pertinent to note that the service connection given is a three phase connection and that the agreement executed by the Director, Tropical Botanical Garden and Research Institute, Palode is for three phase connection. The said service connection given to him was 15 years back with a connected load of 9060 watts. It is submitted by the opposite parties that opposite parties had also given connection to the nearest quarters with consumer Nos.3336 (3 phase), 3338 (3 phase), 3339 (3 phase) to the same consumer, the Director of Tropical Botanical Garden and Research Institute with connected load in the year 1988. Further the said consumer has not been made a party in the complaint. Hence the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite parties. Opposite parties have made reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Keshav Babu Tare Vs. Executive Engineer, MSEB and another reported in 1 (2004) CPJ 262 wherein it was held that even if the complainant is occupier of premises, if the meter not stands in the name of complainant, complainant is not a consumer. In the instant case, since the meter of the Electricity Board not stands in the name of the complainant he could not hold to be a consumer of the Electricity Board under the Rules. Since complainant is not a consumer and consumer has not been made a party in the complaint, we do not consider other points under discussion. As far this complaint is concerned we find no merits therein.


 

In the result, complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.


 

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.


 

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 15th day of December, 2008.


 


 

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.


 

BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

 


 

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER


 

ad.


 

 

O.P.No.283/2003

APPENDIX


 

  1. Complainants' witness:

PW1 : Jayadhar


 

  1. Complainants' documents:


 

P1 : Photocopy of order dated 17..08..2000

P2 : " of letter dated 11..06..2001 issued to the opposite parties by the complainant.

P3 : " dated 15..03..2002 "

P4 : " dated 10..10..2002 "

P5series : Electricity bill of Rs.216, 290, 142, 257 etc.


 

P6 : Photocopy of acknowledgment card (oneside) dt. 15..06..2001


 

P7 : " of acknowledgment card (otherside) dt.13.06.01


 

P8 : Copy of Quarter Occupation Report dt. 5.12.2000


 

  1. Opposite parties' witness:

 

DW1 : Shihabudeen

     


 

  1. Opposite parties' documents: NIL


 


 

PRESIDENT


 

 

 




......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad