DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Friday the 30th day of December, 2022
C.C. 358/2016
Complainant
Balakurnup, S/o Ramakurup,
Puthan purayil Veed,
Vaikkilashery P.O,
Kozhikode – 673104.
(By Adv. Sri. P. Anil Kumar)
Opposite Parties
- Assistant Engineer,
Electrical Section Office,
K.S.E.B Ltd.,
Orkkatteri, Calicut.
- Krishi Officer,
Cherode Krishi Bhavan,
Cherod P.O,
Calicut – 673106.
ORDER
By Sri. V. BALAKRISHNAN – MEMBER.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
An electricity connection was taken by the complainant having the consumer number 14076 from first opposite party. The connection for agriculture purpose was given on recommendation by the second opposite party. The monthly electricity charges was remitted by the second opposite party regularly. On 19/05/2014 the first opposite party informed that there was pending payment and connection would be disconnected. Then the first opposite party was contacted and paid Rs. 370/- on 21/05/2014 to avoid disconnection. Even then the first opposite party disconnected the power supply and the second opposite party could not furnish a correct reply. The first opposite party later informed that payment made on 21/05/2014 was adjusted to the pending arrears. The first opposite party is not competent to take such a decision without informing him and the second opposite party. It is the duty of the first opposite party to collect payment from second opposite party, and the second opposite party should not make arrears for the regular payments. The first opposite party disconnected the agriculture connection in an irresponsible way and without any reason creating much loss to the agricultural sector of the complainant. There is deficiency of service on part of first and second opposite parties resulting high loss and difficulties to the complaint. Hence the prayer of the complainant is to pass an order to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to him for the mental agony and financial losses suffered.
3. The first opposite party filed the version. The second opposite party was set ex-parte.
4. In the version, the first opposite party denied all the allegations of the complainant. The payment made Rs. 370/- on 21/05/2014 on behalf of the complainant is admitted in the version and stated that it is made by the second opposite party for the consumer number 14076. It is also clear from the certificate of payment details of second opposite party. The complainant is a consumer who has taken power supply for agriculture purpose and included in the list of consumers for whom the payments are done directly from the second opposite party. From the payment made on 21/05/2014 Rs. 224/- was adjusted towards the arrear payment for the period of 11/2013 to 5/2014 and Rs. 146/-was credited as advance payment. The advance amount was adjusted in the bill 7/2014, 9/2014 and 11/2014. On march 2015 Rs. 15 was in excess in the consumer number 14076. Payment of Rs. 51 was received towards the charges of 01/04/2015 to 31/06/2015 and Rs. 50 for the period of 01/08/2015 to 31/10/2015. The legal responsibility of the first opposite party to do the disconnection of default consumers are also mentioned in the version.
5. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
(1). Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
(2). Reliefs and costs.
6. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1, who is none other than the complainant. Exts A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the complainant. No evidence was let in by the opposite parties.
7. Heard both sides.
8. Point No 1 : The complainant was examined as PW1 and to prove his case, Exts A1 to A11 were produced by him. The complainant is a consumer of the first opposite party who availed electricity connection for his agriculture purpose on recommendation of second opposite party. All the electricity bills were paid directly by the second opposite party to the first opposite party, on receiving intimation. The allegation towards the first opposite party is that the complainant was compelled by them to make the payment of Rs. 370/- as pending arrears and even after making the payment the first opposite party disconnected his LT5A connection. From the account details and version filed by the first opposite party and Ext A6, which is duplicate print of KSEB bill, it is clear that Rs. 370/- was remitted to KSEB on behalf of the complainant. From Ext A2, letter issued by the second opposite party Rs. 370/- was seen paid from them towards the bill of 10/04/2013 to 31/03/2014. From Ext A3 the certificate issued by the second opposite party confirmed the payment of Rs. 370/- on 21/05/2014 to first opposite party, paid directly by the second opposite party. The complainant represented before the commission that his agriculture connection was disconnected by the first opposite party. But no documental evidence of disconnection was produced by the complainant. The affidavit filed by the first opposite party on 02/12/2019 clearly states that the electricity connection of the complainant having the consumer number 14076 was not been disconnected by the first opposite party due to default of payment. There is no dispute regarding the receipt of Rs. 370/- by KSEB on 21/05/2014. The complainant could not produce any evidence of dual payment of Rs. 370/- by him and the second opposite party. Moreover there is no indication of any excess payment which is not kept as unadjusted by the first opposite party. Going through all available documents produced by the complainant and opposite party, we are of the view that there is no deficiency of service on the party of first opposite party.
9. Regarding the allegation against second opposite party the complainant has not produced the original receipt. If the payment was actually made by him, naturally he will be in possession of original receipt. But the original receipt is not forthcoming.
10. As per section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Consumer means any person who buy any goods or avails or hires of any service for consideration. Free electric supply for agriculture purpose is a benefit extended by the Government. It is not supported by any consideration. So the complainant cannot be a consumer as per Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, even if it is taken that it was the complainant who made the payment, he will not fall under the definition of consumer as far as the 2nd opposite party is concerned. So the complaint as against the 2nd opposite party is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
11. Point No.2: In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 30th day of December, 2022.
Date of Filing: 22/08/2016.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext. A1 – Letter dated 16/02/2016 addressed to the 2nd opposite party.
Ext. A2 – Reply letter dated 27/02/2016 from the 2nd opposite party.
Ext. A3 – Certificate issued by the 2nd opposite party dated 18/04/2016.
Ext. A4 – Letter dated 22/01/2016 given by the 2nd opposite party .
Ext. A5 – Letter dated 11/04/2016 given by the second opposite party.
Ext. A6 – Electricity bill (duplicate) dated 21/05/2014.
Ext. A7 - Letter dated 14/06/2016 addressed to the 1st opposite party.
Ext. A8 – Reply letter dated 27/06/2014 given by the 1st opposite party.
Ext. A9 – Letter dated 30/01/2016 given by the 1st opposite party.
Ext. A10 – Letter dated 17/02/2016 given by the 1st opposite party.
Ext. A11 – Letter dated 18/04/2016 given to Executive Engineer, KSEB.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Nil.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 – Balakurup (Complainant)
Witnesses for the opposite parties
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Forwarded/By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
