CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM NORTHERN REGION, . (Formed under Section 42(5) of Electricity Act 2003) Vydyuthibhavan, Gandhi Road, Kozhikode -673011 Telephone Number -0495 2367820 [email protected]

PRESENT

BEENA GOPINATH. S : CHAIRPERSON

LEKHARANI. R. : MEMBER II

ROBIN PETER : MEMBER III

OP No.102/2018-19

PETITIONER :

Kum.Rinsha Fathima, House No.10/180, Naduvilakkandi paramba,Naduvannur P.O,Kozhikode-673614.

RESPONDENTS :

1. Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, ,Kozhikode District-673525

2. Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, KSEB Ltd, Naduvannur, Kozhikode District- 673614. ORDER

Case of the Petitioner:-

The petitioner, Smt. Sajitha Kumari as Mother and guardian of Rinsha Fathima ad litem of Mohammedan Female minor 11 years old Perambra, Naduvanur, Kozhikode district, comes under the jurisdiction of Electrical section Naduvannur.

1. This has reference to consumer number C 1166184001013 which was in the name of Punnumma V.K at House No.10/180 Naduvilakandy.

The current consumption charges was learnt to be in arrear and he the legal guardian of the minor had approached No.1 of them for payment thereof. He paid on 16.10.2018 Rs.1500/- as per receipt no.6618018101610103 and Rs. 732/- as per receipt no. 66180181016101054.

To his dismay and surprise it is found that the receipt is issued in the name of FASAL who has no right over the land, house or connection. There seems to be some foul play in this regard.

One Nasar claiming to be PoA of one Fasal has filed a suit for partition as OS No.142/2017 wherein he contends that he has purchased 9/2016 shares in the property in which the aforesaid minor has according to him 7/2016 shares. Admittedly he has no possession over the property or any share thereof as claimed by him as he had sought court order for possession also.

Admittedly the house no.10/180 where at the electric connection given is owned by the said minor Rinsha Fathima. The true copy of the ownership certificate issued on 09.10.2018 to the minor is produced herewith to confirm this unquestionable fact. The name Fasal is therefore to be erased from their records and files concerning this consumer number. The name of Rinsha Fathima minor by guardian Sajitha is to be shown.

You are hereby called upon to do as above and issue corrected receipts to the minor and continue to issue the bills to her name and not in Fasal’s or anybody else’s name. Compliance by return of post demanded. Failure would entail appropriate action on your own risks and costs.

Version by the Respondent:-

1. Consumer Number 1166184001013 is a domestic service connection, which was previously registered in the name of Smt. Ponnumma .V.K. Sri. Fasal, Fathima House, has submitted an application for ownership change. He submitted possession certificate (No. 34251076 dated 24/07/2018 issued by village Officer Naduvannur) which was issued against both Fasal and Rinsha Fathima , Fathima House, Sub Jail Road, Koyilandy 673305. Ownership certificate (File No. 5102901/1537/2018 dated 21/07/2018 issued by Naduvannur Grama Panchayat shows that ownership is in the names of both Rinsha Fathima and Fasal.

2. Rinsha Fathima is a MINOR girl aged 11 years. Any agreement which is signed by a minor is not valid as per law. Mandatory Documents are to be signed with KSEB Limited for change of ownership, Service connection etc. So Sri. Fasal has signed the application as well as agreements. The name of the party who has signed the application as well as agreement has been entered against consumer number 1166184001013. 3. Hence, Ownership against Consumer number 1166184001013 was changed to Sri. Fasal. He has also submitted indemnity bond authorizing KSEB Ltd., to disconnect the service in case of any fault detected on his part and also stated in the indemnity bond that he is ready to compensate any loss sustained to Board owing to the transfer of Security Deposit from previous consumer to his name.

4. In the light of above documents and by taking in to good faith, the ownership in respect of Consumer Number 1166184001013 was changed to Sri. Fasal and at this point of time the name of registered consumer can not be changed to Rinsha Fathima, minor aged 11 years. Kumari Rinsha Fathima, D/o. Smt. Sajitha was already informed about this vide Lr. No.DB/NDVNR/OWNERSHIP/2018- 19/73 dt. 23-10-2018 through Regd. post with acknowledgement of which is awaited. Hence it is humbly prayed to dismiss the OP at the earliest.

Additional Statement:-

This has reference to consumer No.C1166184001013 which was in the name of Ponnumma V.K. at house No.10/180 Naduvilekandy. The current consumption charges was learnt to be in arrear and he the legal guardian of the minor had approached No.1 of them for payment thereof. He paid on 16.10.2018 Rs1500/- as per receipt No.66180181016101034 and Rs732/- as per receipt No.66180181016101054. To his dismay and surprise it is found that the receipt is issued in the name of Fasal who has no right over the land,house or connection. There seems to be some foul play in this regard. One Nasar claiming to be the Power of Attorney of one Fasal has filed a suit for partition as OS No.142/2017 wherein he contends that he has purchased 9/16 shares in the property in which the aforesaid minor has according to him 7/16 shares. Admittedly he has no possession over the property or any share thereof as claimed by him as he had sought court order for possession also.

Admittedly the house No.10/180 whereat the electric connection is given is owned by the said minor Rinsha Fathima. The true copy of the ownership certificate issued on 09.10.2018 to the minor is produced herewith to confirm this unquestionable fact. The name Fasal is therefore to be erased from the records and files concerning the consumer number. The name Rinsha Fathima minor by guardian Sajitha is to be shown.

It is hereby called upon to do as above and issue corrected receipts to the minor and continue to issue the bills to her name and not in Fasal’s or anybody else’ name. Compliance by return post demanded. Failure would entail appropriate action on their own risks and costs.

Rejoinder by the petitioner:-

His client M/s. Sajitha, w/o. Late Shaji, H.No.new 10/180, Naduvilekandi Parambra, Naduvannur Amsom & Desom, Koyilandy Taluk, Post Naduvannur, Kozhikode – 673 614 as mother and guardian ad litem of the minor Rinsha Fathima 11 years, instructs him to serve this legal notice on them all. 1. This has reference to their impertinent and escapist reply dated 23/10/2018 (No.DB/NDVNR/Ownership/2018-19/73) sent to Rinsha Fathima, admittedly the minor concerned.

2. In the outset their stealth in sending the reply to the minor direct in her name with instruction to the postal authority not to serve it on her, instead of replying to her mother and guardian adlitem his client. Smt. Sajitha is exposing your design behind that transfer of ownership to Mr. Fasal who has no right at all in the house wherein their power connection exists.

3. They themselves say that as Rinsha Fathima is a minor and hence they could not contract with her in regard to the consumer connection papers, still they have no shame in addressing the letter to the minor direct and not her mother/guardian. Their salution of the minor as “Respected Mohammedan Female minor” is also in very bad taste and actually a dig at the minor to camouflage the sin they have committed.

4. The other two to whom the letter was addressed, have obviously kept quiet for reasons best known to them and evaded replying. You justification of issuing the transfer of the consumer connection to Fasal is illegal, incorrect and improper and reflective of undue and corrupt influence exerted on you. The Sub Engineer in charge; (disclose your name in writing by return of post).

5. The copies of the records you have attached to your said reply are under challenge already as intimated to you and are on their face incredible. You ought to have seen from the Ownership certificate produced before you by my clients that the ownership of the house is in the name of the minor Rinsha Fathima alone. The records adding Fasal’s name also in them is a clear cut, patent forgery and fabrication, you ought to have deciphered, befitting your status as a Government servant, instead of falling prey to their influence fiscal and communal.

6. The Ownership certificate produced in pending civil suit for partition by Fasal, admitting therein that he is not in possession of the house, or his alleged share of property and seeks possession through court, shows openly Rinsha Fathima’s name only as its true owner. Then how can they swallow the claim of Fasal as co owner.

7. Moreover if the other party is a minor and as you state disabled to contract in her own name, is it a stranger to represent her you would switch over according to you? It was your bounden duty to contact the mother/guardian of the minor. Even in sending the reply you have signed by not sending the reply to the guardian mother. All these are your sham tactics to camouflage your sin in having fallen prey to the corrupt influence of Fasal ad his PoA agent Nasar.

8. Having got consumer ship transferred to his name from you, why do you not note that Fasal just vanished without paying the dues to you and you had to collect it from the minor’s mother/guardian. By issuing receipts to her showing the name of fasal again is another treachery on your part. They cannot be spared from the hands of law; as they have done all these mischief in regard to a minor’s property. They have treaded a path of sin, violation of duty and treachery. They are given one more opportunity to correct their mistakes and make amends. If they don’t forthwith, they would thereby invite legal action against them personally in additional to official dereliction.

Discussion, analysis and findi ngs :-

The hearing of the case was convened on 13.11.2018.

Having considered all the documents submitted and the deliberations during the hearing,the Forum has come to the following conclusions leading to the decision:-

The matter revolves around a family feud and the present issue is mainly in connection with the partition of landed property and its ownership. As providing the basic necessity on demand is the sole objective of the licensee, electricity can never be deprived of to anybody else. The issue in dispute is demanding the change of ownership from Smt.Ponnumma, the registered owner, to one Fasal purported to be her close relative. The licensee effected service connection in the name of Sri.Fasal on the basis of joint ownership dated 21.7.2018 issued by Naduvannur Grama Panchayath in the name of Fasal and Rinsha Fathima. The version of the licensee is that one of the Joint owners Kum.Rinsha Fathima is a minor girl aged 11 years and incapable of signing the agreement as per law. It is stated that the ownership has been changed in to Sri.Fasal who has affixed his signature in the application after executing an indemnity bond authorizing the licensee to disconnect the service in case of any fault detected on the part of the applicant.

Secondly, in the 3rd para of the rejoinder it is disgustedly stated that the clients were found having some surreptitious relationship and personal rivalry. This Forum has its own decorum and preserves its predominant importance in passing the judgments impartially. The Forum passes the judgment based on the available evidences similar to what is going on in other judicatures. Hence It cannot be depicted as a mean adjudicating body. A sense of intimidation will not work out at any cost in the functioning of day to day affairs of the Forum.

The present case is closely associated with the adjudication of civil nature and the revelation of the additional statement is found to be ambiguous. The Regulation 91 of KERC 2014 explains the detailed procedure in connection with the transfer of ownership. In the stipulated application form as per Regulation 90(1) of supply code 2014, NOC from legal heirs in case of joint ownership is necessary. As this is a case of change of ownership, service connection can be effected to anyone of the owners after obtaining consent of the co-owner or legal guardian in case of minor. The action of licensee in registering the name of consumer by not obtaining NOC is not in order. However the board order BO(FTD)No.1902/2018[D(D & IT)/D-6-AE3/ease of doing business/2018-19] dated 02.11.2018 clearly stipulates that service connection can be effected in the name of any one of the co owners. It further clarifies that consent from joint owners are not required for obtaining service connection. Hence the Forum is of the view that even though the measures taken by the licensee at the time of effecting service connection is not in order it can be treated as valid now. Thus the plea of the petitioner can not be allowed.

DECISION:- The petition is dismissed.

Dated this the 30 th day of Nov, 2018

Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Robin Peter Lekharani R. Beena Gopinath. S

Member III Member II Chairperson. Endt.on CGRF-NR/OP 102/2018-19 / 608 / 30 /11/2018 Forwarded to: If the petitioner is not satisfied with the above order of 1) Kum Rinsha Fathima, this Forum, she is at liberty to prefer appeal before D/o Sajitha,HNo.10/180 State Electricity Ombudsman, Charangattu Bhavan Naduvilakandy Paramaba, Building No.34/895,Mamangalam,Anchumana Road, Naduvannur,Koyilandy, Edapally,Kochi-682024 (Ph: 04842346488) Kozhikode-673614. within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. 2) The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, KSEB Ltd, Perambra, Kozhikode District-673614. Copy submitted to: Chief Engineer (Distribution North) Kozhikode. Copy to: 1. The Secretary, KSEB Ltd., Vydyuthibhavanam, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Vadakara. 3. The Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, . Forwarded 4. The Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Naduvannur, Sd/- KSEB Ltd., Kozhikode District. Chairperson