Kerala

StateCommission

A/08/413

thrissur corporation - Complainant(s)

Versus

abdul rehman - Opp.Party(s)

b.vasudevan nair

01 Feb 2011

ORDER

 
First Appeal No. A/08/413
(Arisen out of Order Dated 09/10/2008 in Case No. cc 1194/2005 of District Trissur)
 
1. thrissur corporation
Kerala
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. abdul rehman
Kerala
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  Sri.M.V.VISWANATHAN PRESIDING MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURA

 

APPEAL NO.413/08

JUDGMENT DATED 1.2.2011

 

PRESENT

 

SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN     --  MEMBER

SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN                     --  JUDICIAL MEMBER

SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA                    --  MEMBER

 

1.      Thrissur Corporation,

Reptd. by its Secretary.

2.      Asst.Secretary,                                --  APPELLANTS

          Electricity Department,

          Thrissur Corporation,

          Thrissur.

            (By Adv.B.Vasudevan Nair)

 

                   Vs.

 

Abdul Rehman P.A.

S/0 Ahammed,                                          --  RESPONDENT

 Panikkaveetil House,

Vatanappilly.

                                                                                                 

                                            JUDGMENT

                                               

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

     The appeal is directed against the order dated 9th September 2008 passed by CDRF, Thrissur in CC.No.1194/05.  The complaint therein was filed to get P2 statement demanding Rs.18,046/- cancelled.  The said P2 statement was issued by way of electricity charges and other incidental charges for the period from April ‘97 to January 2001.  The appellants who are the opposite parties before the Forum below filed written version stating that Rs.15,172/- is due from the complainant.  Thus, the Forum below came to the conclusion that the appellants/opposite parties cannot be justified in issuing P2 statement demanding Rs.18,046/-.  Thereby, the Forum below cancelled P2 statement for Rs.18,046/-.  It is against the said order dated 9th September 2008 the present appeal is preferred.

          2. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for respondent/complainant.  We heard the learned counsel for appellants/opposite parties.

            3. The materials available on record would show that the appellants/opposite parties issued P2 statement for Rs.18,046/- towards the electricity charges for the period from April ‘97 to January 2001.  But, in P2 statement, it is also stated that the said sum of Rs.18,046/- was claimed by way of electricity charges up to March 2001.  It is also to be noted that P2 is not an electricity bill issued in the regular form.  A perusal of P2 statement would make it clear that it is written in a scrap  of   paper without the details of the demand.  So, the Forum below has rightly described the P2 statement as a rough statement.  It is also pointed out by the Forum below that along with the written version appellants/opposite parties filed another calculation statement and thereby the amount would come o Rs.15,172/- only.  No explanation is forthcoming from the side of the appellants/opposite parties for the aforesaid discrepancy regarding the    quantum   of   the amount demanded from the    complainant/

consumer.   More over, nothing is stated for making the arrears of the electricity charges for the period from April ‘97 to January 2001.  In Ext.P2 demand a sum of Rs.2,869/- is shown as P.I.  But, nothing is stated about the so called P.I.    Another sum of Rs.5/- is demanded as L.F.  No explanation is also given for the aforesaid short forms LF and P.I.  Thus, the Forum below can be justified in cancelling P2 statement demanding Rs.18,046/-.  We do not find any sustainable reason or ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below.

          4. The Forum below has also directed the appellants/opposite parties to restore the supply of electricity which was disconnected by the appellants.  It is to be noted that there is nothing on record to show that the respondent/complainant (consumer) neglected to pay the electricity charges.   In fact, appellants/opposite parties committed omission or negligence in demanding the electricity charges as and when the same became due.  So, the Forum below is perfectly justified in directing the appellants/opposite parties to restore the supply of electricity.  Thus, in all respects, the impugned order is liable to be upheld.  Hence we do so.

          In the result, appeal is dismissed.  The impugned order passed by the Forum below is confirmed.    It is made clear that the appellants/opposite parties will be at liberty to issue proper electricity bills for the arrears of electricity charges if any, due to them from the respondent/complainant (consumer).  The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

 

M.V.VISWANATHAN   --  JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

 

 VALSALA SARANGADHARAN  --  MEMBER

 

 

 

M.K.ABDULLA SONA --  MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
[ Sri.M.V.VISWANATHAN]
PRESIDING MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.