Karnataka

Bangalore 2nd Additional

CC/598/2009

Smt. Padma Y.N. Murthy & Smt. Suman Vijay - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Superintending Engineer (Elec.) BESCOM - Opp.Party(s)

IP

31 Mar 2009

ORDER


IInd ADDL. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN
No.1/7, Swathi Complex, 4th Floor, Seshadripuram, Bangalore-560 020
consumer case(CC) No. CC/598/2009

Smt. Padma Y.N. Murthy & Smt. Suman Vijay
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

The Superintending Engineer (Elec.) BESCOM
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




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.

ORDER

31/03/2009 Complaint/By Sri: IP Opposite party/By Sri: The complainant has filed complaint stating that she has applied for power supply to commercial building newly constructed at Jayanagar, Bangalore. The opposite party sanctioned power supply after follow up. It is the case of the complainant that she has deposited Rs.11,18,160/- as demanded by the opposite party. The complainant also purchased power meters on 31/05/2008. Complainant stated that the estimate of the opposite party was totally wrong and mislead. The complainant submitted that she has been mislead and misguided by the BESCOM in paying huge amount towards unwanted materials and work which has been executed. Therefore, she demanded opposite party to refund sum of Rs.9,24,300/- + Rs.85,000/- totally Rs.10,9,300/- with Bank interest. The complainant states that opposite party may be directed to refund the amount and to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- for mental agony. On careful reading of the complaint, the complaint cannot be admitted before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on two counts. Firstly, the complainant applied for the power supply to commercial building a newly constructed at Jayanagar, Bangalore. Therefore, the complainant will not come under the definition of consumer as defined under Sec.2(1)(d) of C.P Act, 1986. It is not the case of the complainant that she has constructed commercial building exclusively for the purpose of her livelihood by means pf self employment. The complainant has availed services of opposite party for the commercial purpose that is to the commercial building newly constructed at Jayanagar. Therefore, the complainant cannot be termed as consumer under the definition of consumer as defined under Sec.2(1)(d) of the C.P Act, 1986. On this ground itself, the complaint is not liable to admitted. Secondly, the complainant had deposited Rs. 11,18,160/- with the opposite party for taking power supply to the commercial building. Now she wants refund of the amount from the opposite party on the ground that she is not liable to pay the amount. If this is the case it is only a question of money suit. The complainant has to file a civil suit for recovery of amount against the opposite party before the competent Civil Court. The Consumer Forum cannot convert into a Civil Court for filing money suits. If at all there is any dispute between the complainant and the opposite party in respect of the amount paid for getting power supply the matter requires to be settled by the higher authority of the opposite party or by the Civil Court. Therefore, the complaint filed before this Forum is not maintainable. Therefore, the complaint is not admitted and it deserves to be dismissed. However, this dismissal will not come in the way of complainant filing a civil suit or making appeal or revision before the higher authority or appellate authority of the opposite party. With this observation, the complaint is not admitted and same is dismissed. Order accordingly, PRESIDENT We concur the above findings. MEMBER MEMBER