D.O.F:18/01/2016
D.O.O:16/08/2021
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.30/2016
Dated this, the 16th day of August 2021
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Vincent.P
S/o John Prabhakar,
Managing Partner
Kasaragod BRI : Complainant
Yeniyarpu House, Bela P.O
Kasaragod Taluk and District
(Adv: Benny Jose)
And
1. The Tahasildar (RR),
Taluk Office, Kasaragod
2. The Village Officer, : Opposite Parties
Bela Village, Bela
Kasaragod Taluk and District
3. The Assistant Engineer,
Electrical Section, Badiadka.
4. The Executive Engineer,
Electrical Division, Kasaragod.
(Adv: Jithesh Babu P.K OP 3&4)
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant is that he was running an industrial unit engaged in preparing pots and clay items. It is electrified with Consumer No: 22587 – 1. He sold the unit on 30/07/ 2012 with the property there in to Abdul Rahiman Haji and parted with possession. The complainant requested the Opposite Party No. 4 KSEB to dismantle the electric connection. KSEB removed the meter accordingly. On 15/02/2013 assistant Engineer KSEB told there is a balance of Rs. 52167.23 towards electricity charger. He contacted the purchasers of the property and purchaser promised to clear the amount. He is running another unit with consumer No. 22586 and complainant is very regular in paying its charges. Complainant received notice from Opposite Party No.1 demanding Rs. 3,36,0449/- being the electric arrears as on 01/07/2013. Industry did not function after 30/07/2012.
Opposite Party No.2 told to pay the money or else the property will be sold in public auction Opposite Party No.2 has no right to proceed against the property. There is no legal liability to pay the money demanded. The complainant therefore pray that R.R is unfounded and not supported by proper documents and to recall RR.
2. Opposite Party No.1 and 2 filed the version saying that RR proceedings is initiated as per procedure by requisition of KSEB. Complainant remitted 1/3 of dues as a condition for stay granted by the Forum as per order dated 19/10/2016 in IA 20/2016.
3. Opposite Party No.3 and 4 filed joint version. The version says once RR is initiated Forum loses its jurisdiction to stay the proceedings or entertain the matter. The industries unit of the complainant consumes large amount of energy the damage of separate transformer and the expenses are incurred by KSEB through Minimum Guarantee Scheme which the consumer is liable to pay. Board spent Rs. 4,32,600/- and amount fixed per month is Rs. 9913/- per month for 7 years apart from electricity charges. The complainant is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 142340.63/- as outstanding amount from 06/08/2011 to 11/07/2013 and Rs. 2,18,308/- towards Minimum Guarantee for 22 months thus Rs. 3,60,448.43 in total as dues. Thus prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. Complainant filed chief examination affidavit and was cross examined as Pw1 Ext A1 to A3 documents produced from his part. RR demand notice marked as Ext A1 and A2 bill for Rs. 52167/- and copy of sale deed Ext A3. Opposite Party No.3 and 4 produced Ext B1 to B3. B1 is Minimum Guarantee Agreement. Ext B2 is bill details and bill details of consumer No. 22587.
6. Considering the disputes raised following points arise for consideration in the case.
a) Whether complainant is liable to pay the amount demanded by KSEB towards consumer No: 22587 or not?
b) Whether RR proceedings legally enforceable?
C) Whether complainant’s contention that no amount is due by him in view of his sale deed of property to Abdul Rahiman? And so for what reliefs?
7. The complainant in his evidence admits, that there is no documents available to show that he informed sale of unit or property to KSEB, no letter given to dismantle the connection, that purchaser agreed to clear the arrears, no dispute relating to charges due to KSEB is in arrears, he admits that Rs. 9913/- is payable by him per month, he admits board spend Rs.432600/-towards for transformer that he is liable to pay charges as per bill Ext B2 bill details, that KSEB is entitled to recover the amount due as per RR proceedings. In view of categorical admission, it is proved that amount claimed by KSEB is really payable and due by complainant property in question was sold on 30/07/2012. Issue involves as to whether the property in question can be held liable for the arrears of electricity charges due from its previous owner. Regulation 7 of KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply Act 2005 provides that if the purchaser of a premises requires to have a new electric connection, arrears if any with respect to any connection which was already dismantled should be realized from the previous owner/occupier of the premises and not from the purchaser. The above provision indicates that if the property is transferred after dismantling the connection then the purchaser cannot be held liable for payment of the arrears. No evidence that connection is dismantled yet.
The Petitioner challenging the revenue recovery steps initiated against him pursuant notices, issued under section 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The amount though sought to be recovered with respect to electricity connection with consumer No.22857. It is pertinent to note that the said regulation will create a charge only on the assets of the consumer and not on the property in which the connection was provided. Hence it is evident that the consumer or his assets alone are liable for payment of the dues. Regulation 36 and (12) of the KSEB Terms And Conditions Of Supply enables the Board to realize arrears due to it in the same manner as if it is arrear of land revenue, through RR proceedings.
The Distributer or the supplier enters in to a contract with dues of his predecessor, as the amount payable towards supply of electricity do not constitute a charge on the properly. The purchaser of a premise did not challenge sale of his property yet.
8. In general law a transferee of the premises cannot be made liable for the dues of the previous owner or occupier. But in the case at hand it is not a case where the petitioner applied for connection in the very same premise.
The first question therefore, is whether the complainant was liable to pay the minimum guaranteed charges for the period during which supply remained disconnected. Consumer would be liable to pay the minimum guaranteed charges unless it could be shown that the contract itself was terminated. The mere disconnection of the electricity supply would not amount to termination. However the minimum guaranteed charges were still payable by complainant.
In view of the legal position remaining settled as above it can be held that the property purchased by the petitioner by virtue of Ext A3 sale deed can be proceeded against for recovery of the arrears of electricity charges due from its previous owner. In any event present owner of property did not raise any objection for sale property for electricity prior dues.
Based on the stipulations contained in Ext A3 sale deed, where in it is not mentioned that it will be the liability of the purchaser for payment of outstanding dues on account of electricity supplied. But in view of the legal position remaining settled as enumerated above KSEB can enforce the demand against petitioner based on the terms of the agreement. Rights and obligations arising out of the contract of sale will apply only to the parties of such contract and not to the electricity board.
Under the above mentioned circumstances the RR proceedings initiated against the petitioner is in accordance with a law and bound is entitled to recover the amount due as per demand made.
Hence it is found that KSEB is entitled to recourse to revenue Recovery proceedings for recovery of the amount due , steps are taken in accordance with law and recovery proceedings is sustainable and not liable to be set aside.
In the result complaint is dismissed but without any order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- RR demand notice
A2- Bill for Rs. 52167
A3- Copy of sale deed
B1- Minimum Guarantee Agreement
B2- Bill details
B3- Bill Details of Consumer No: 22587
Witness Examined
Pw1- Vincent. P
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
