Date of Filing 07. 10.2023 :

Date of Disposal :04. 72.2025 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE ^CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COM MISSION, (PRTNCTPAL BENCH)

DATED THI THE O4TH DAY OF DEC MBER 2025 PRESEN T HON,BLE MT ]USTICE T G SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA:

PRESIDENT HON,BLE MTS DIVYASHREE M: LADY ^MEMBER sc/29/ AlLaag/2023 Mr K. Prasanna Kumar, The Executive Engineer, MESCOM pi-576101 Appellant Udu (By Mrs Rakshitha D J, Advocate)

-Versus-

Mr H Ragavendra Shetty, Aged about 44Years, S/o Mr Manjaiah Shetty, R/at. Near PWD Office, Kitturu Chennamma Road, Ajjarakadu, Udupi District, pi-576101 Respondent

Ud u

(By Mr K Prasanna Shetty, Advocate)

: ORAL ORDER:

PER: Mr JUSTICE T G SHMSHANKARE GOWDA:

PRESIDENT This Appeal is filed U/S 4l of the ^Consumer Protection Act 2019, by the Complainant challenging ^the Order dated 31.05.2023 ^passed in Consumer ^Complaint No.52/2023 by the District Consumer Disputes ^Redressal Commission, Udupi(in short, the ^{District Commission)'}

2. Appellant was the Opposite Party ^{(in short OP) and} Respondent was ^the Complainant ^{before the}, District Commission. Commission. For ^the sake ^of convenience, ^{the rank of the} parties shall be referred to as per their status before ^the

3. The brief facts of the ^{case are that, the Complainant} has obtained electricity connection ^{from MESCOM vide RR} No.UDP16522, The Complainant was ^{regularly paying the} electricity bills raised by ^{MESCOM and there was no bill} due for payment. Inspite of ^{paying the electricity bills} regularly, ^the MESCOM has disconnected ^{the electricity} supply 3 tlmes due to alleged non-payment ^{of bills on} time. In order to avoid the said disconnections, ^on 22.01.2022, the Complainant had deposited ^Rs.10,000/- with MESCOM and ^pald monthly bill of ^{ranging from} Rs.1,500/- to 20,000/-. Inspite of said deposit ^being made, on 13.03.2023, staff members of OP have ^dis- connected the electricity connection without intimation ^and Complainant came to know the fact ^{only at 8 pm. Hence,} pleading deficiency of service, the Complainant has filed the present Complaint before the ^{District Commission'}

4. Before the District Commission, ^{notice issued to the} OP was not served, returned ^{with endorsement as} 'unclaimed'. Therefore, the District Commission ^proceeded to take the affidavit evidence of ^{Complainant as CW1 and} 11 documents came ^to be ^{marked as Ex-C-l to C-11,} After hearing ^the arguments of the ^{Learned Counsel for} the Complainant, District Commission allowed the complaint in ^part and directed the ^{OP to pay Rs.25,000/-} as compensation towards mental agony ^{& hardship and} cost of Rs,5,000/-. Aggrieved by the ^{same, OP has} preferred the present Appeal.

sc 129 I Al t88e I 2023

5.

We have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the Respondent and ^perused the materials on ^record.

6.

Now the point that arises for our consideration is-

Whether Order of the District i Commission in allowing the Complaint ⁱⁿ part is perverse, illegal and calls for interference?

ii.

What Order?

:REASONS:

(i'l:

Point No

7. On careful ^perusal of the ^{materials on record, it is} pertinent to note that the Complaint was filed against ^one Mr K Prasanna Kumar, the Executive ^{Engineer of MESCOM.} To the pointed question to the ^{learned counsel for the} Complainant, whether the Complainant ^{is a consumer of} Mr K Prasanna Kumar or MESCOM, the ^{answer is} Complainant is a consumer of ^{MESCOM and not Mr. K} Prasanna Kumar. Fundamentally, this ^{technical issue has} been lost sight of by the District ^{Commission' Complaint} in respect of MESCOM cannot be filed against ^{the Officer in} his personal capacity, as the Order was ^{passed against Mr} K Prasanna Kumar and he cannot be made as party for the activities that has affected the Complainant tn taking servlce from the MESCOM. In that view of the matter, the District Commission ought to have directed the Complainant to implead MESCOM as ^party to the Complaint and then proceeded to consider the Complaint on merits.

8. Since notice was not served on the OP, the Complainant has to be directed to implead the ^{MESCOM as} the party