sc / cBu 29 I RBl I ^{Al 38O} / ^{20 L3} Date of Filing: 22.03.2013 Date of Disposal ^{28. 10.2025} :

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA ^{STATE CONSUMER} DISPUTES EDRE AL COMMISSION, KALABURGI CIRCUIT ^BENCH DATED, THIS THE ^{28th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025} PRE ENT HON,BLE MT JUSTICE T ^{G SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA:}

PRESIDENT MTS DIVYASHREE M ^{:LADY MEMBER} sc I cBL t 29 I ^RBT I ^{Al 38O} I ^2Ot3

1. Gulbarga Electricity ^{Supply Co Ltd',} Bellary Represented bY ^{its Chief Engineer} O&MZone Bellary

2. Gulbarga Electricity Supply ^{Co Ltd'}

Bellary Represented by ^its Executive Engineer (Ele.)

C S C, BellarY

3. Gulbarga Electricity Supply ^{Co Ltd'}

Bellary Represented ^{bY its} Assistant Executive ^Engineer (Accounts) CSD-II Appellants Bellary (By Mr Ravindra ReddY, ^Advocate)

sc/ cBL I 29 I RBT I ^{A/ 380/ 2o 1 3} -Versus-

1. M/s Hotel Bala, [RegencY]

Parvathi Nagar Bellary Represented bY ^its Managing Partner S/o Late Pola, [Mr Pola Venkaiah]

R/o Gandhi Nagar ^BellarY

2.SmtPRPadmalatha

W/o Mr Pola Venkaiah

Partner

M/s Hotel Bala

R/o Gandhi Nagar

Respondents Bellary (By Mr S A Sami, Advocate for Rl and R2) :ORAL ORDER:

PER : MT JUSTICE T ^{G SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA:}

PRESIDENT This Appeal is filed ^{U/S 15 of Consumer Protection} Act, 1986 of Opposite Parties ^{(for short OPs) challenging} in the order dated ^{29.L2.20t2 passed consumer} Complaint No.126/2012 ^{by District Consumer Disputes} Redressal Commission, ^{Ballary (for short, the District} @--"

Commission).

scl c9t / 29 / ^RBl I ^{Al 380} I ^2Ot3

2. Appellants were ^{the OPs 1 to 3 and Respondents} were the Complainant No.1 ^{and 2 (for short the} Complainants) before ^{the District Commission' For the} sake ^of convenience, ^{the rank of the parties shall be} referred to as ^per the ^{status before the District} Commission.

3. The brief facts ^{of the case are that, the Complainant} No.1 is a boarding and ^{lodging situated at Parvathi Nagar,} Bellary. The Complainant ^{No.2 is one of the Partner of} Complainant No.1. ^{Complainants obtained power supply} bearing Meter No. HT-126 power connection ^{from the OPs;} the electricity consumption ^{charges being demanded} monthly and it is promptly ^{paid by the Complainants' For} the reason of ^{payment being made promptly,} in the bill amount'

Complainants were offered ^concession In the month of ^{August 2011, a bill was raised in the} name of the Complainants, ^{reflecting an arrears of} Rs.57,000/-.

sc I cB7 I 29 I ^RBT I ^A I ^38O / ^{2Ot 3}

3(a). Anticipating ^{the threat of disconnection of power,} Complainants have ^{cleared the said amount and made an} enquiry with OP3 about ^{the difference of amount claimed} and they have been ^{informed about HT rating report from} August 2010 to June ^{2011. Ultimately, on 22'09'2OlL,} OPs have informed the ^{Complainants that, arrears of} demand was in ^{respect of M D record demand for the} period from August 2O1O to ^{June 2011 and failed to give} proper explanation for such ^{demand' For the month of} September 2012, ^{OPs have shown the arrears at} Rs.65,000/- with ^{interest at Rs'585/- and threatened the} Complainants ^{of consequences of disconnection, if arrears} with interest not ^{paid. Without any alternative,} Complainants on ^05.09 '2012 ^{paid the arrears including} electricity consumption charges ^{by way of a Cheque under} protest.

3(b). Complainants have alleged ^{that they are not liable} to pay any arrears, ^{as they have regularly paid the} amount for electricity ^{consumption charges and OPs have} tampered the electricity ^{meter or line. Hence, they issued} scl csl I 29 I RST I Al 38O / 2Or3 a notice ^to OPs on 11.07.2012 ^{to rectify the difference'} OPs without rectifying ^{the same, claimed as a short claim} of MD Record Demand and not ^{as arrears. OPs have not} issued a separate bill for the ^{same, but it is shown as} arrears in the monthly bill' ^{Therefore, seeking refund of} Rs.61,085/- with interest at ^{18o/o p.a. from OPs,} Complainants have approached ^{the District Commission by} filing a Complaint.

4. Before the District ^{Commission, OPs have opposed} the Complaint by filing their ^{Version, contending that the} District Commission ^{has no jurisdiction to entertain the} Compliant, as there ^{is clear}