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

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 2210

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MAHADEVAIAH K – Appellant
Versus
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER – Respondent
SC/29/A/711/2023



Petitioner Advocates:B H GANESH ,Respondent Advocate: H.V Devaraj

I Date of filing: 06.04.2023 Date of Disposal: 20.02.2026 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA ATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMTSSTON. BENGALURU (PRTNCTPAL BENCH)

DATED: 2oth DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 PRESENT coRAM: HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE T.G. SHMSHANKARE GOWDA - PRESIDENT and -

HON,BLE MTS. DIVYASHREE M LADY MEMBER sct29 At7tLt2023 t Sri. Mahadevaiah K, S/o. Late Basavaiah, Aged about 69 years, Vat: Kodlapura Grama/

Doddakavalande Post, Nanjanagudu Taluk, Mysuru District.

(Rep. by Sri. B.H. Ganesh, .....Appellant/s.

Advocate)

-Y/s-

1) Assistant Executive Engineer, Chamundeshwari Electric Supply Company, R.P.Road, Nanjangud.

2) Superintendent Engineer, Chamundeshwari Electric Supply Company, City Works Circle, Kuvempunagara, Mysuru. (Respondent Nos.1 & 2 are .....Respondent/s.

represented by Sri. Devaraju, Adv.)

ORAL RDER (PER: HON'BLE Mr. IUSTICE T.G. SHMSHANKARE GOWDA, PRESIDENT)

This Appeal is filed by the complainant Under Section

15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the order dated: 02.03.2023 passed in c.c. No.348/2017 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, 2. The Appellant was the complainant and Respondents was the opposite parties before, Mysore (in short the District Commission). District Commission. The rank of the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the District Commission.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, the complainant is a consumer of electricity and opposite party Nos.1 & 2 are the service provider. Complainant has installed a petty shop in his village and obtained power supply vide RR No.

party.

N3C15273 from the opposite On 29.05.2008 the electricity connection was taken by following all the Rules and Regulations of the opposite party. On 28'02'2014 the opposite party without informing anything have disconnected the electricity connection' Complainant approached the opposite party and in-spite of filing the application the electricity connection was not restored and even an application was made to the Government in this regard on 09.04.2020. The opposite parties did not reconnected the electricity. The complainant has paid Rs.2,7O5l- to the opposite party and he was promised to get the reconnection if payment receipt is produced. In- spite of making payment electricity was not connected.

I Again he was asked to pay Rs.1,650/- in-spite of making said payment electricity was not connected.

Hence pleading deficiency of service complainant has filed complaint before the District Commission seeking direction to the Ops to provide the electricity connection and also to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

4.

Complaint is opposed by the OPs contending that, the District Commission has no jurisdiction to'entertain the complaint. There is no relationship of service provider and the consumer. It is admitted that, in RR No.N3C15273 power supply was provided to the petty shop of the complainant. From the date of providing the service till the date of filing the version the installation was not disconnected. The complainant is getting the electricity under the concessional rate and therefore he is not entitled to file the comptaint. lt is the specific case that, on 28.07.2008 in-spite of the power was supplied he has not paid the consumption charges for the period of 03 months. Hence a notice was issued on 28.02.2014 intimating the proposed disconnection. The complainant by paying Rs.2,705/- has requested for reconnection of the electricity. Since the electricity was not at all disconnected, there is no question of reconnecting the electricity.

4(a).

The complainant has not doing any business in the petty shop, except obtaining the electricity connection. Since 2008 minimum charges have been paid and in the month of August-2014 there is a dispute in the village regarding the petty shop occupying the Road in the village, because of said dispute electrlcity wire was pulled-down by the villagers. This tact was suppressed by the complainant. When the meter reader visited the petty shop of the complainant

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