National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Chakradhar Sahoo vs Khetramohan Parida & Ors. on 29 April, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 159 OF 2013 (From the order dated 01.11.12 in First Appeal No. 23/2012 of Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) Sri Chakradhar Sahoo s/o late Alekha Sahoo, r/o Plot No. 568, Unit 9 (Flat), Bayababa Math Lane, P.O. Bhaoi Nagar, P.S. Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar, District Khurda Odisha ... Petitioner/Complainant versus 1. Khetramohan Parida (Dead) through its Legal heirs A. Smt. Tuna Kumari Parida w/o Khetramohan Parida B. Kabindra Kumar Parida s/o Khetramohan Parida C. Sachindra Sunder Parida s/o Khetramohan Parida D. Pranabesh Parida s/o Khetramohan Parida E. Swayam Parakash Parida s/o Khetramohan Parida F. Rabindra Ranjan Parida s/o Khetramohan Parida G. Omprakash Parida s/o Khetramohan Parida All residents of Laxmi Bhandar (Grocery Shop) Shop No. 1, Plot No. 568, Unit 9 (Flat), Bayababa Math Lane, P.O. Bhoi Nagar, P.S. Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar, District Khurda, Odisha 2. S.D.O. (Comm.) (Electrical) Sub-Division No. III, BCDD-1, CESU, near IMFA Park, Bhubaneswar, District Khurda 3. Jr. Manager (Elect.) Unit 9 (Flat), Electrical Section CESU BCDD- I, Bhubaneswar, District Khurda. Respondents/Opposite Parties
BEFORE HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Petitioner Mr. Soimyajit Pani, Advocate For Respondent 1 Ms. Swati Bhushan Sharma, Advocate For Respondent 2 & 3 NEMO PRONOUNCED ON : 29th APRIL 2014 O R D E R PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER 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 ` 75,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and ` 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.
4. The District Forum after taking into account the evidence of the parties, passed order dated 27.12.2011, dismissing the consumer complaint, stating that OPs 2 & 3 had discharged their statutory obligations in accordance with the provisions of statute and rightly transferred the ownership. The District Forum have passed their order based on regulation 13(10) and 103 of OERC (Condition of supply) Regulation 2004. An appeal against this order filed before the State Commission was also dismissed vide order dated 1.11.2012 by the State Commission. It is against this order that the present petition has been made.
5. During proceedings before this Commission, reply was filed on behalf of LRs of respondent no. 1 saying that the petitioner/complainant had managed to get deed of cancellation dated 31.12.2008, illegally and unlawfully without the signatures of the vendees. In pursuance to the sale-deed dated 18.01.2008, the OP 1 made application for getting the electric connection changed to their name and the said change was made by the electricity department on 12.05.2008.
The OP 2 & 3 had acted in accordance with law. The suit regarding title was pending in the civil court.
6. The petitioner/complainant filed his replica to the reply given by the respondent no. 1 saying that despite cancellation of sale-deed, OP 2 & 3 had not taken any action to cancel the electric connection in the name of OP
1. A notice had also not been served on the petitioner before making any change.
7. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that respondent no. 1 / OP 1 was his tenant and he did execute a sale-deed in his favour, although only half of the consideration amount had been paid. The OP 1 had taken advantage of the sale deed and got the electric connection transferred in his name. The learned counsel stated that the matter was still pending adjudication by the Civil Court. He further stated that he was making payments of the electricity bill in question, although the connection was not in his name. The transfer of electric connection had been made in favour of the OP 1, without following the rules and regulations. Even after disconnection, the petitioner got the connection restored after obtaining orders of the District Forum and on payment of the outstanding dues.
8. The learned counsel for respondent no. 1 stated that the electric connection had been changed in his favour by OP 2 & 3, based on registration deed 18.01.2008 in his favour. The transfer was made effective with effect from 12.05.2008. The petitioner has no authority to cancel the sale-deed unilaterally. The learned counsel stated that the petitioner had filed the present proceedings with a view to obtain a favourable order, which could be useful to him in proceedings pending before the Civil Court.
9. I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me. The admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant was the owner of the property in question and he executed the sale-deed dated 18.01.2008 in favour of OP 1. He has himself stated that the said sale deed was executed, although only a part consideration had been paid by OP 1. Later on, as per the version of the petitioner, the said sale deed was got cancelled on 31.12.2008. It is also an admitted fact that civil litigation is pending between the parties.
A copy of the suit for declaration for setting aside the sale deed dated 18.01.2008 has also been placed on record.
It is clear from the prayer clause in the said suit that the suit be decreed with a declaration that the registered sale deed no. 868 dated 18.01.2008 is null and void.
10. It is clear from the above facts that the change in electric connection was made by OP 2 & 3 on 12.05.2008, based on the sale-deed dated 18.01.2008 in favour of the OP 1. The factum of cancellation of sale deed or its declaration as null & void, is pending between the parties. In case, the said sale deed is declared null & void and the prayer of the complainant is granted, the authorities of the Electricity Department can change the connection in favour of the petitioner at that time. At the present stage, I do not find that the orders passed by the State Commission or District Forum suffer from any legal infirmity, irregularity or jurisdictional error on any ground. The present revision petition is, therefore, devoid of any merit and the same is ordered to be dismissed and the orders passed by the Consumer Fora below are upheld. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(DR. B.C. GUPTA) PRESIDING MEMBER RS/