P.R. Sugasree v. Thrissur Municipal Corporation

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN** **MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2013/6TH JYAISHTA 1935** ## **RSA.No. 244 of 2013 ()** **-----------------------** ## **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN AS 175/2010 of II ADDL.SUB COURT, THRISSUR DATED 30-06-2012** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS 182/2004 of II ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT THRISSUR DATED 28-02-2007** ## **APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:** **-------------------------------------------------------** **P.R.SUGASREE AGED 55 YEARS ADVOCATE, S/O.RAMAN, PANIKKASSERY HOUSE SILVER SAND BUILDINGS, WEST FORT, TRISSUR-4.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.THOMAS CHAZHUKKARAN SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR SRI.K.S.MIZVER** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:** **--------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. TRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, CORPORATION OFFICE TRISSUR-1.** **2. TRISSUR MUNCIPAL CORPORATION ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT SECRETARY (ELECTRICAL WING), CORPORATION OFFICE, TRISSUR-1.** **THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-05-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **JJJ** ## **N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J.** ------------------------------------------ R.S.A. No. 244 of 2013 -----------------------------------------Dated this the 27[th] day of May, 2013 ## **J U D G M E N T** The plaintiff who lost concurrently in a suit for declaration, injunction, refund of money, damages etc. is the appellant. The case of the plaintiff is that he is in occupation of the premises in question as per Ext. A1 rent deed dated 15-8-1999. Formerly it was in the occupation of another Advocate Mr. N.S. Ramesh (P.W.2). It is contended that the plaintiff has been paying the electricity charges regularly and that he did not keep any arrears of electricity charges. 2. Apprehending disconnection by the defendants the suit has been filed. Besides, he has also sought for refund of money and damages etc. The suit was resisted contending that the notice, as required under Sec. 544 of ## **R.S.A. No. 244/2013** **-2-** the Kerala Municipalities Act, was not sent. Attempt was made by the appellant to contend that the suit was actually for injunction and so no notice is required. But the courts below have pointed out that as on the date of the filing of the suit, the suit was virtually for declaration, damages and refund of money and also for injunction. Besides, injunction against disconnection, even in the affidavit filed in lieu of examination, the plaintiff pressed into service all those reliefs. 3. The defendants contended that there was arrears of electricity charges during the period when the card system was prevailing and that the said amount has not been paid so far. The electricity connection is still in the name of the Chairman of 'Ushus Complex'. The plaintiff did not get it transferred in his name. The contention that there was no arrears of electricity charges payable in ## **R.S.A. No. 244/2013** **-3-** respect of the said consumer number is denied by the defendants. Admittedly, the consumer number in respect of the said building is 9317C. Though the plaintiff contended that he had paid the entire electricity charges, no document whatsoever was produced. The contention that the receipts obtained earlier were lost, is not a reason to say that he could discharge the burden cast on him. He did not take steps to get the registers and other records from the K.S.E.B. to show that the amount due was, in fact, paid. The other contention that has been vehemently pressed into service by the appellant is that no notice was issued to him before disconnection. But it is pertinent to note that the notice was to be issued to the consumer - Chairman, Ushus Complex. The appellant was not the consumer and so the contention that he was to be given notice, cannot be sustained at all. ## **R.S.A. No. 244/2013** **-4-** 4. It was vehemently contended by the defendants before the courts below that the plaintiff is a person who knows what should be done; he is not a layman. He was bound to produce records to show the due payment of the electricity charges. The amount due was for the period prior to the starting of spot billing. Since the connection stands in the name of Chairman, Ushus Complex, and since the arrears was not paid, the defendants were entitled to cause disconnection. If so, the complaint that there was an attempt to have illegal disconnection is found to be devoid of any merit. 5. Whether the charges were payable for the period prior to his occupation or not may not be of any relevance since the consumer number stands in the name of the Chairman Ushus Complex. So far as the defendants are concerned they are entitled to proceed only against the ## **R.S.A. No. 244/2013** **-5-** consumer. That amount was not paid. They were perfectly justified in causing disconnection. If there is any dispute between the plaintiff and the Chairman of Ushus Complex, that is something to be worked out between the plaintiff and other persons. There could be no cause of action against the defendants. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision in **Asst. Engineer v. Entheenkutty – 1982 KLT 851** in support of his submission that the term 'whose premises are connected' will be premises of a person who is in possession thereof and since the appellant, who was in possession of the premises was not given notice, the action taken by the respondent is illegal. But there is no case for the appellant that he had intimated the respondent that he was in possession or occupation of the building in question as tenant nor did he request the authority to send ## **R.S.A. No. 244/2013** **-6-** a notice to him pertaining to that consumer number. Therefore, the aforesaid decision has no application to the facts of this case. 7. The decision in **Cyriac v. K.S.E.Board – 1989 (1) KLT 920** has also been relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in support of his submission that when a consumer was making payment of the charges regularly on demand he is entitled to be informed in clear terms as to how additional liability is accrued or arisen. As stated earlier notice was sent to the consumer because the charges was payable by the consumer. The appellant herein had never informed the respondent as to the necessity of issuing any notice to him. No document was also produced by the appellant to substantiate the plea that he was paying the charges regularly. Therefore, the aforesaid decision is also of no help. The courts below have appreciated the **-7-** ## **R.S.A. No. 244/2013** evidence in the correct perspective and came to the right conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief in the suit. No substantial question of law is involved in this case. This appeal is devoid of any merit and hence it is dismissed. Sd/N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A. to Judge jjj