SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member, Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Member
Sri Melville Pinto —Petitioner
versus
Executive Engineer, Mescom (Mangalore Electricity Supply Company) —Respondent
Revision Petition No.3186 of 2012
(Against the Order dated 24/05/2012 in Appeal No. 2267/2011 of the State Commission Karnataka)
Decided on 3.5.2016

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr C G Gururaj, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr B S Sharma, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Power connection obtained by petitioner by misrepresentation can be disconnected without prior notice.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Electricity—Deficiency in service—Disconnection of power supply without prior notice—Complaint dismissed by Fora below—Power connection was obtained by petitioner by misrepresentation—Respondent after carrying out due investigation and due diligence had taken necessary corrective action to transfer the connection to rightful owner—On facts of the case, there was no deficiency in service on part of respondent in disconnecting electricity connection—No fault or error in orders of lower Fora and order does not suffer from any legal infirmity—Revision petition dismissed. (Paras 12 to 15)

       Result: Revision Petition dismissed.

       

ORDER

Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Member—This revision challenges the order dated 24.05.2012 of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (‘the State Commission’) in Appeal no. 2267 of 2011.

2. The facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that he is the registered owner of residential premises bearing no. 17-8-514/15 at Sheethal Apartments, Maria Nagar, Mangalore which was purchased by means of a registered sale deed on 15.05.1997. The earlier owner of the said premises Mr V L Rego had issued a letter dated 27.03.1998 to the respondent to transfer the Khatha into petitioner’s name after purchase. After the said letter, the Khatha was changed into petitioner’s name as per the respondent’s letter dated 10.11.2009. The petitioner paid a security deposit and other fees totalling to Rs.1620/- on 02.11.2009 to the respondent company. Thereafter, he was regularly paying the electricity bills issued by the respondent and up to 04.03.2010 the petitioner had paid all the electricity bills without any dues. All of a sudden the respondent disconnected the electricity supply to the petitioner’s residential premises without giving any prior notice which amounts to deficiency of service. Due to disconnection of the electricity, the petitioner had suffered heavy loss of Rs.25,000/- as a result of loss of rent. The petitioner immediately sent a written notice to the respondent on 24.09.2010 requesting to do the needful but the respondent failed to supply the electricity. Thereafter, the petitioner applied under Right to Information Act sought information as to the reason for disconnection of the electricity supply to the petitioner’s house. The respondent replied through a letter dated 28.10.2010. Since, the respondent had disconnected the electricity without prior notice, they were deficient in service and he prayed for restoration of the electricity along with a compensation for deficiency of service.

3. On receipt of notice, the respondent filed their written version and contended that on the basis of the letter issued by one Mr V L Rego, they have transferred JL no. 224 in the name of the petitioner and it was false to say that they have disconnected the electricity supply to the petitioner’s premises. In fact, they had not at all given any electricity connection to the petitioner’s premises bearing D No. 17-8-514/15. The owner of the flat no. 12 Ms Kavitha Alva having a D No. 17-8-514 had written a letter dated 24.02.2010 to change the JL no. 224 in her name. After verifying the records submitted by Ms Kavitha Alva, the said Khatha was changed into her name and after re-verification it was found that the flat no. 15 measuring 162 sq.ft never had any electricity connection at all. It was further, learnt that, the entire Sheethal Apartments had 16 electricity connections. The building had only 14 flats. Out of the 16 connections, 14 connections had been given to each of the flats and one for the pump and another for the stair case/ common areas lightings. Apart from these 16 connections no electricity connection had been given to any Room no. 15, which was the premises of the petitioner. The said premises was situated on the ground floor of the building. Therefore, they have not disconnected the electricity supply to the petitioner and there was no deficiency of service and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4. The Dakshina Kannada District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mangalore (‘the District Forum’) vide its order dated 15th July 2011 while dismissing the complaint observed as under:

“On going through the documents produced by the complainant and opposite party, it is observed that V L Regu had sold 162 sq ft of premises to the complainant in the Flat no. 12 which bears door no. 17-8-514/15. Subsequent to the sale of the said premises, the complainant got transferred the electricity khatha into his name. The said meter number is JL 224 to the said door number. After the sale deed, the premises of th




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top