IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.10837/2018 (GM – KEB) BETWEEN:
K.V.KRISHNAKUMAR SINCE DECEASED, THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE NITHIN K., S/O LATE K.V.KRISHNAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT "SHIVAPREMA", 6TH MAIN, OPPOSITE NEPS, SHANKARAPURAM, TUMKUR-572 102. ... PETITIONER [BY SRI SHODHAN BABU A.M., ADV. FOR LAW OFFICES OF PANAG & BABU.] AND:
1. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., CORPORATE OFFICE, 4TH FLOOR, K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (V) BESCOM, (O & M DIVISION), KOTI TOPU ROAD, TUMKUR-572 102.
3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (E1), BESCOM, CITY SUB DIVISION-1, TUMKUR-572 101.
4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (V), BESCOM, CITY SUB DIVISION-1, TUMKUR-572 101. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI G.C.SHANMUKHA, ADV.] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE LETTER OF THE R-2 DATED 02.02.2018 AT ANNEXURE-G.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has challenged the letter of respondent No.2 dated 02.02.2018, inter alia, seeking a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to refund the amount of Rs.14,63,376/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Sixty Three Thousand Three Hundred and Seventy Six) to the petitioner along with interest at 18% per annum from the date of deposit (29.11.2008) till the date of actual payment.
2. The petitioner is claiming to be a legal representative of deceased – Sri. K.V. Krishna Kumar.
3. The factual aspects leading to the case are as under:-
The respondent’s Vigilance Cell, has conducted an inspection on 22.11.2008 at KNS Rice Mill, situated at Santhepete, Tumkur, where the seal on the electricity meter bearing RR No.P3559 was tampered with. Respondent No.4 assuming that the deceased – K.V. Krishna Kumar was the consumer of electricity utilized at KNS Rice Mill proceeded to initiate the criminal proceedings in Crime No.351/2008 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 135, 138 and 158 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code. Respondent No.3 based on the said inspection issued a demand notice towards back billing charges of Rs.3,53,000/- and Rs.11,10,000/- towards the compounding charges for the alleged offences. Sri K.V.Krishna Kumar (deceased) has compounded the offence and paid the entire demand of Rs.14,63,376/-. It transpires that the Trial Court by its judgment dated 17.10.2015, acquitted the accused/K.V. Krishna Kumar (deceased) in the case, as the prosecution failed to prove its case. The petitioner being the legal representative of the deceased – Sri. K.V. Krishna Kumar has sought for refund of the money collected by respondent Nos.2 and 3 subsequent to the acquittal of all the accused by the competent Court. The said request of the petitioner has been rejected by respondent No.4 directing the petitioner to move before the Appellate Authority for refund of the amount claimed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inviting the attention of this Court to the order of the Sessions Court dated 17.10.2015 would submit that a categorical finding has been given by the Trial Court inasmuch as the prosecution having failed to prove that the electrical meter was tampered and the electrical equipment was inserted in the meter and operated by the remote control even before the subsequent purchaser of the property in question Sri Kadaba Sridhar came into possession of the said Rice Mill. No material was placed to establish the factum that on which day the said electrical equipment was inserted inside the meter to prove the alleged theft by the petitioner. Learned counsel would submit that on the date of the inspection i.e., on 22.11.2008, Sri K.V. Krishna Kumar was no more the owner in possession of the property in question as the property was transferred in the name of Sri Kadaba Sridhar, who was managing the KNS Rice Mill. No liability can be fixed on K.V.Krishna Kumar for any tampering of the electrical meter, if detected by the inspection team of the respondent – Authorities. The request made by the petitioner for refund of the charges along with the compounding fees collected by the deceased – K.V. Krishna Kumar has been outrightly rejected by respondent No.2 without assigning any valid reasons. The petitioner has been unnecessarily directed to approach the Appellate Authority seeking for refund of the amount which is unjustifiable.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents justifying the impugned order at Annexure – G dated 02.02.2018 submitted that the acquittal of the accused – K.V. Krishna Kumar in the criminal case would not entitle the petitioner to claim refund of the charges paid by the said K.V. Krishna Kumar on compounding the offences. The petitioner cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction without exhausting alternative remedy of appeal provided under the Electricity Act, 2003.
6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.
7. The genesis of the dispute relates to the inspection of the premises in question inasmuch as the electricity meter bearing RR.No.P3559 installed vis-à-vis the back billing charges of Rs.14,63,376/- paid by Sri.
K.V. Krishna Kumar (deceased) compounding the alleged offence of theft of the power. The subsequent development inasmuch as the acquittal of the accused -
K.V. Krishna Kumar (deceased) in the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent – Authorities is the cause for the petitioner to seek refund of the amount paid by Sri. K.V. Krishna Kumar (deceased). Much emphasis is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner to contend that father of the petitioner Sri. K.V. Krishna Kumar was not the owner in possession of KNS Rice Mill where the electrical meter was installed on the date of the inspection. Indeed, it was transferred to one Sri. Kadaba Sridhar who was maintaining the said KNS Rice Mill. The demand raised by the respondent – Authorities for alleged theft said to have been committed by K.V. Krishna Kumar (deceased) and compounding fees paid by the said K.V. Krishna Kumar (deceased) on the threat of the respondent – Authorities are all the factual questions to be determined by the authorities concerned. These factual aspects cannot be adjudicated by this Court under the writ jurisdiction. As such, the order/endorsement impugned passed by respondent No.2 to approach the Appellate Authority for the redressal of the grievance cannot be held to be unjustifiable.
8. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as aforesaid, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, reserves liberty to the petitioner to approach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum for the redressal of the grievance. If such proceedings are initiated by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, the same shall be considered by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum in accordance with law in an expedite manner, in any event, not later than four weeks from the date of initiation of the proceedings.
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR