SRI MELVILLE PINTO Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MESCOM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.