Karnataka

StateCommission

A/2488/2022

Bangalore Electricity Supply - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri. R. Subramani, - Opp.Party(s)

H V Devaraju

31 Jan 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE

 

DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF JANUARY 2023

 

PRESENT

 

SRI. RAVI SHANKAR                         : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C. BAGEWADI              : MEMBER

 

Appeal No. 2488/2022

 

Electricity Supply Company Limited (BESCOM) Corporate Office at K.R. Circle Nrupathunga Road Bengaluru 560 001 Rep. by its General Manager (Ele) (By Sri. H.V. Devaraju)  V/s	….Appellant
R. Subramani S/o. Ramachandra Chari Proprietor of Nandi Prints No.1031, 1st Floor, 25th Main 40th Cross, Jayanagara, 9th Block Bengaluru 560 001	..…Respondent

O R D E R

 

BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

OP in C.C.No. 103/2022 on the file of III Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore preferred this appeal against order dated 30.09.2022 passed on application filed by this appellant to dismiss the complaint as barred by jurisdiction and submits that complainant had filed complaint alleging deficiency in service and sought for compensation to the tune of RS.1.00 crore.  After issuance of notice this appellant  appeared and filed an application to consider the matter on pecuniary jurisdiction preliminarily.  After hearing from both sides, the District Commission dismissed the application and gave verdict that complaint is within pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission relying upon the judgement rendered by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in C.C.No.833/2020 between Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.  Infact, the complainant had not disclosed the amount paid to this appellant and only sought for a claim to the tune of Rs.1.00 crore.  In the absence of any consideration amount paid, only claim for compensation to the tune of Rs.1.00 crore is beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission.  Without considering the said fact the District Commission dismissed the application. Hence, prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission and dismiss the complaint itself.

2. Heard from appellant on admission.  On perusal of the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the order passed by the District Commission on the application filed by this appellant, we noticed that complainant had claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.1.00 crore towards loss of goods due to fire caused on 25.05.2020 and he suffered loss to the tune of Rs.60.00 lakhs by fire which caused due to electrical short circuit.  Hence, alleged deficiency in service and sought for compensation to the tune of Rs.1.00 crore.  After admission District Commission issued notice to OP to file version, whereas this appellant had filed application under Rule 3 of Consumer Protection Act with respect to the maintainability of the complaint upon looking at the claim made by the complainant.  The District Commission after hearing from both sides has dismissed application holding that District Commission has jurisdiction to entertain complaint since there is ruling given by the Hon’ble National Commission that the District Commission has to consider only the amount paid towards purchase of any product or service and not claim amount.  Basing on the said principle District Commission dismissed the application.
3. Here we noticed that complainant being a consumer to the appellant/OP had obtained electricity connection to his shop and was paying electricity bills regularly.  When fire accident occurred due to electrical short circuit as alleged he claimed for compensation to the tune of Rs.1.00 crore.  The District Commission has rightly dismissed the application as because the District Commission has considered the amount paid towards usage of electricity and considered that it is well within the jurisdiction of District Commission and District Commission has not considered the amount claimed by the complainant basing on the decision.
4. The Learned Advocate for appellant vehemently argued that the complainant has not disclosed the amount paid towards purchase of electricity supply.  Without mentioning the said amount complainant only claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.1.00 crore which is beyond pecuniary jurisdiction and submits the District Commission made an error.   Arguments submitted by Learned Advocate is not acceptable as because it is implied fact that when the complainant is using electricity by paying certain amount we consider the said amount is within Rs.50.00 lakhs which the District Commission has jurisdiction.  Hence, the complaint is well within the jurisdiction of the District Commission and District Commission has rightly dismissed the application.  No interference required.  Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

 

MEMBER                                   JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

CV*