CHAKRADHAR SAHOO Vs. KHETRAMOHAN PARIDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 1.11.2012, passed by the Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in FA No. 23/2012, "Sri Chakradhar Sahoo versus Khetramohan Parida", vide which, while dismissing appeal, the order dated 27.12.2011, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Khurda, dismissing the consumer complaint no. 526/2009, was upheld.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant Sri Chakradhar Sahoo filed consumer complaint no. 526/2009, saying that he was the owner of a piece of land in Khata No. 42, Mauza Bhubaneswar, Sahar Unit No. 9, Bhoi Nagar and a single storey residential house had been constructed on the said property where the complainant was residing with his family. He had been paying municipal taxes and land revenue regularly. There was an electric connection provided by the Orissa State Electricity Board (OSEB) vide consumer no. 11.1.81, corresponding to new account no. 01234186 for 1 KW in his name and he used to pay the electricity bill regularly. There was an adjoining piece of waste land near the residential building, upon which, the complainant had constructed three shop-rooms for business purposes for which a separate electric connection under commercial category vide consumer no. 11.1.81/1, corresponding to account no. 01375974 for 1 KW had been obtained and the complainant used to pay the bills for that connection also. It is further stated in the complaint that OP 1 was a tenant in shop room no. 1 on monthly rental basis. The son of OP 1 cultivated family relations with the complainant and taking advantage of the same, gave a proposal to purchase land and building of the complainant. The complainant got registered sale deed no. 868 dated 18.01.2008, executed in favour of OP 1, although the possession of land and building was not delivered to OP 1. Thereafter, since there was violation of the contractual agreement between the parties, the complainant made a deed of cancellation on 31.12.2008, vide registered document No. 19986. However, civil litigation regarding the property in question was pending between the parties. The complainant has alleged that when sale deed no. 868 dated 18.01.2008 was executed between the parties, OP 1, made a representation to OP 2, who is officer of the Electricity Board, requesting for change of electric connection from the name of the complainant to the nominee of OP 1. The OP 2, without making an inquiry about the physical status on the spot, changed the electric connection illegally in favour of OP 1 and thereafter, the electric bills were raised in the name of OP 1, although the payment was still being made by the complainant. The complainant served legal notice upon OP 2 for change of consumer name, but it yielded no result. During this period, when the electricity bill was not paid, the OP 3 at the behest of OP 2 disconnected the power supply on 28.10.2009 without notice. The complainant approached OP 2 & 3 for reconnection and deposited the outstanding dues and reconnection fee on 30.10.2009, but the same was not restored due to the influence of OP 1. The complainant requested for a direction to the OPs jointly and severally, not to disconnect the power supply for both connections and also a direction for change of the name of the consumer in his name and Rs. 75,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs. 20,000/- as cost of litigation. An application was also filed by the complainant on the same day before the District Forum, requesting them that an interim order should be made, directing the OPs to restore the power supply for both the connections. The District Forum passed the order on 3.11.2009 itself, directing the OPs to restore the power supply for both the connections and also directed the petitioner/complainant to pay the electricity dues regularly.

(3.) In the written reply filed by OP 1, it was stated that the allegations made in the complaint were not correct. The registered deed had been executed for the property in question, in his favour by the complainant himself and the possession had also been delivered to him. The electric connection had, therefore, been rightly transferred in his name, based on the registered sale-deed. The OP 2 & 3 also filed their written version before the District Forum, saying that the complainant was not the owner of the land where the power supply was being provided and hence, he was not a consumer. He had already sold the property vide registered sale-deed No. 868 dated 08.01.2008, which was presented before them by OP 1, alongwith a copy of record of rights and based on that, the change of consumer name was considered. The complainant had no legal status in the matter.