BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU

1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027.

   23^rd DAY OF OCTOBER 2020

O R D E R

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K., PRESIDENT

This complaint is filed by the complainant against the Opposite Party (herein after called as OP) under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The complainant prays to direct the OP to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the deficiency in service causing financial losses and mental distress, to pay Rs.10,000/- costs of the complaint and such other reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of complaint is as under:

Complainant submitted that, OP has cut the power connection during the hot summer season.  The complainant complained about the disconnection of power to her residential house on 25.03.2017.  The OP has sent a SMS contending that issue will be resolved within 26.03.2017.  Thereafter the OP appointed technical team and visited the complainant’s residence on 25.03.2017 to check the pole.  They found that no fault in it.  That the meter got disconnected due to non-payment of consumption bill.  The complainant convince the OP that he has paid up-to-date bill.  The OP told the complainant that if the other co-tenants are defaulter, then whole building would suffer disconnected as per their rule.

The complainant submitted that due to OP has not set right the problem even after 24 hours made the complainant and his children to suffer from depriving of electricity facility for the whole night.  When the complainant requested the OP, OP has just ignore the complainant’s complaint.  The next day was Sunday.  The essential perishable items in the fridge got spoiled, the complainant’s children’s higher studies got affected and her aged mother-in-law suffered very badly due to her multi disorders of old age.  The complainant submitted that due to negligent act of OP, complainant made to suffer more than 24 hours without electricity.  Complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of OP.  Hence complainant filed this complaint.

3. In response to the notice issued, OP appeared through their advocate and filed their version in brief as under:

OP submitted that the complainant has availed power supply bearing R.R Nos.C5EH 12077, C5EH 12078, C5EH 12079 and C5LG 26386 in the name of complainant Mrs.Nuzath Naz Hussaini at the premises bearing No.66, 10^th Cross, K.B Sandra, Bengaluru under LT2(a) Tariff.  Out of which the installation bearing RR Nos.C5EH 12077 and C5EH 12079 were not having any arrears as on 25.03.2017.  However the installations bearing R.R Nos.C5EH 12078 and C5 LG 26386 having arrears of 2,419/- and Rs.755/- respectively.  Complainant has not paid the consumption charges from January 2017 in respect of the installation bearing R.R No.C5EH 12078.  Similarly the complainant has not paid the consumption charges in respect of installation bearing R.R No.C5LG 26386 for the month of March 2017.  That it could be seen from the said bills, the said two installations were serviced in the name of complainant, even despite of issuance of the bills, which provides for 15 days’ time to pay the consumption charges, the complainant failed to pay the monthly consumption charges.  Therefore non-payment of the consumption charges, the said two installations bearing RR Nos.C5 EH 12078 and C5 LG 26386 have been disconnected on 25.03.2017 for non-payment of energy consumption charges for the month of February 2017 and the said amounts were paid vide payment event – ID – 955771799357 and 95577179935 dated 28.03.2017 at Bengaluru One Centre through cheque bearing No.331082.  Complainant has unauthorisedly reconnected the said two installations on 26.03.2017 and therefore the contrary averments made in the complaint that the OP disconnected the installation bearing R.R No.C5EH 12079 on 25.03.2017 are all false.  There was no disconnection in the said installation and therefore the complaint made by the complainant is without any basis and allegations made against OP is nothing but an false and frivolous.  Only in order to play fraud on the supply Company as well as on this Forum in order to claim wrongful amount from the OP.

OP further submitted that the OP staff has not committed malafide tactics to harass the complainant.  The alleged illegal disconnection of the installation bearing R.R No.C5EH 12079, it account No.2480717000 is false.  It is on the obligation on the part of consumer, who availed the power supply has to pay monthly consumption charges.  However on account of non-payment of monthly consumption charges, the installation bearing R.R Nos.C5EH 12078 and C5LG 26386 have been disconnected on 25.03.2017 and even before payment of the consumption charges, the complainant has reconnected the power supply unauthorizely on 26.03.2017 and the payment of arrears have been paid through Bengaluru One Centre on 25.03.2017.

OP further submitted that the other allegations made in the complaint that the complainant has made a call to the OP through 24/7 number 1912 from her mobile.  In response to that, she has received SMS confirming the registration of the complaint and however, in response to the said complaint, the officers of the OP has visited the spot and brought to the notice of the complainant that the disconnection of the installation bearing R.R Nos.C5 EH 12078 and C5 LG 26386 due to non-payment of monthly consumption charges.  There is no disconnection in respect of the installation bearing R.R Nos.C5 EH 12079.  Therefore, the contrary allegations made in the complaint that the disconnection of installation bearing R.R No.C5 EH 12079 due to non-payment of consumption charges are all false and there was no disconnection of the said installation.  However the complainant admitted that, the co-tenants are defaulter in paying the monthly consumption charges and made an allegations that the whole building was disconnected without any basis.  That the internal contract between the complainant and the tenants are nothing to do with the Supply Company.

OP further submitted that it is false that the complainant family were deprived the electricity facility for the whole night.  The question of requested personally to the officers of BESCOM and similarly, ignoring does not arise and at any rate.  The installation bearing R.R No.C5 EH 12079 was not disconnected as explained above but the disconnection was of the other two installations and therefore the suffering of the complainant’s children and aged parents does not arise.  The allegations that the OP unfair policy made the complainant distressed for more than 24 hours are all false.  There is no negligence on the part of OP and it is on the obligation on the part of the complainant to pay the consumption charges.  Complainant is not an honest payer of electricity bills.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  It is default on the part of complainant to pay the consumption charges in respect of R.R Nos.C5 EH 12078 and C5 LG 26386.  That on receipt of the monthly bills, 15 day’s time provides for payment of consumption charges.  The obligation on the part of the complainant, who is the consumer of the said four installations to pay monthly consumption charges to avoid the disconnection of the installations.

OP further submitted that the complainant and her husband are the Court birds and they are in the habit to lodging the complaint with one or the other reasons against the OP.  Only in order to harass the officers of the Supply Company and however, the complaint, dated 27.05.2017 through e-mail is nothing but an false, without any truth.  Since there is no disconnection of the installation bearing R.R No.C5 EH 12079 and the same has been brought to the notice of the complainant.  When the officers have attended the complaint made by the complainant with regard to the disconnection was not of the installation bearing R.R No.C5 EH 12079 but the disconnection was in respect of the installations bearing R.R Nos.C5 EH 12078 and C5 LG 26386.  That the OP/officers of the BESCOM have found that, there is no disconnection as alleged by the complainant through her email dated 27.05.2017 and helpline as alleged in the complaint claiming compensation was without any basis.  The complainant is not entitle for any of the prayer as prayed in the complaint.  There was no disconnection of the installation bearing R.R No.C5 EH 12079 and therefore the question of paying the damages as claimed by the complainant does not arise.  Hence OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

4. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and the OP have filed their affidavit reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and objections.  Complainant and OP has submitted written arguments.  Complainant and OP has produced certain documents.  We have heard the arguments of complainant and OP and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of both parties scrupulously and posted the case for order.

5. Based on the above materials, the following points arise for our consideration;  

1. Whether the complainant has proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP, if so, whether complainant is entitled for the relief sought for?

2.  What order?

6. Our findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1:  Negative

Point No.2:  As per the order below

REASONS

7. Point No.1:- The complainant has taken a contention that OP has illegally without giving 15 days prior notice disconnected the power supply of her residential premises even though the complainant making a regular payment of electricity bills without any default.  The complainant and her family members made to deprive for more than 24 hours without power supply.  To substantiate this contention the complainant produced legal notice issued by the complainant dated 27.03.2017 and print out of Section.56 of Karnataka Electricity Act, 2003.

8. Per contra OP submitted that complainant is an owner of premises bearing No.66, 10^th Cross, K.B Sandra, Bengaluru and she had availed power supply to her premises bearing R.R Nos.C5EH 12077, C5EH 12078, C5EH 12079 and C5LG 26386.  The OP further submitted that the complainant has not paid the arrears of Rs.2,419/- and Rs.755/- with regard to R.R Nos.C5 EH 12078 and C5 LG 26386 respectively.  Hence the OP has disconnected the power supply of these two RR numbers on 25.03.2017.  The complainant has paid the bill amount on 28.03.2017 at Bangalore One Centre through cheque bearing No.331082.  However the complainant has unauthorisedly reconnected the said two RR installations on 26.03.2017 itself.  OP further submitted that the OP has not disconnected the installation bearing R.R No.C5 EH 12079.

9. Admittedly complainant is the owner of premises bearing No.66, 10^th Cross, K.B Sandra, Bengaluru and she had availed a power supply in her premises bearing R.R Nos.C5EH 12077, C5EH 12078, C5EH 12079 and C5LG 26386.  It is also an admitted fact that OP has disconnected the power supply on 25.03.2017 for non-payment of the arrears amount.  The said disconnection was reconnected on 26.03.2017.  The complainant paid arrears amount on 28.03.2017. 

10. The main contention of the complainant is that the OP has disconnected the power supply for the whole building, if co-tenant are defaulter.  Now the question before us whether the OP has disconnected the installation of R.R No.C5 EH 12079 or not.  The OP in his affidavit evidence vigorously contended that the OP has not disconnected the power supply of R.R No.C5 EH 12079 but they have disconnected the power supply only with regard to R.R Nos.C5 EH 12078 and C5 LG 26386 for non-payment of the bill.  The burden of proof lies on the complainant side to prove that the OP has disconnected the power supply of R.R No.C5 EH 12079.  The complainant has not produced any iota of evidence to prove that the OP has disconnected the power supply of installation bearing R.R No.C5 EH 12079.  Mere allegation of complainant without any documentary evidence cannot be acceptable. 

11. Further the contention of the complainant is, OP has not given prior notice of 15 days before disconnection, hence it is violation of Section 56 of Karnataka Electricity Act, 2003.  The said contention of the complainant does not hold water in view of the judgment held by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in a case of Karnataka Electricity Board and another against B.P Vasudev Murthy and another decided on 19.01.2001 in W.P No.32619/1999 clearly held that:

“It has held that apart from the condition stipulated on the over-leaf of the bill the corporation was required to issue a separate notice to the consumer calling upon him to pay consumption charges within 7 days failing which power supply would be disconnection.  This finding of the forum is wholly untenable in law as the same is not only opposed to the provisions of the Act and Regulations referred to supra but it is impracticable for issuing separate 7 days notice apart from the demand bill on the over-leaf it will be clearly mentioned that if the consumer does not pay consumption charges, power supply will be disconnected”.

12. Based on the above citation, we are of the opinion that the complainant has miserably failed to prove any deficiency on the part of OP.  Without producing any clear and cogent evidence the allegations made by the complainant cannot be considered.  In view of the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs claimed against the OP.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly, we answered the point No.1 in the negative.

13. Point No.2: In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:                   

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.  Parties to bear their own costs.

Furnish free copy of this order to both parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the open Commission on this 23^rd day of October 2020)

Witnesses examined on behalf of the GPA holder of complainant by way of affidavit:

Sri.Syed Ishrathulla Hussaini.

Copies of documents produced on behalf of complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the OP by way of affidavit:

Sri.Y Prabhakar, who being Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele), C-5 Sub-Division, BESCOM, Bangalore.

Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party:

Vln*