KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO:327/2008 JUDGMENT DATED:30..03..2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT 1.Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board, Pinangode Road, Kalpetta, Wayanadu. : APPELLANTS 2.The Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv: Sri.S.Balachandran) Vs. Abdulla Kallangodon, S/o Late Kunhammed Haji, Palmgrove, : RESPONDENT Ambilerry, Kalpetta, Wayanadu. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/KSEB in OP:55/02 in the file of CDRF, Wayanadu. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost. 2. It is the case of the complainant that his electric connection was disconnected since 1995. In June 2001 he wanted to have the connection restored. At the time it was informed at first that he has to pay Rs.38,638/-. Subsequently it was reduced to Rs.12,103/-. Thereafter he was informed that he has to pay Rs.19,000/-. When he approached the Executive Engineer it was told that he will have to pay a sum of Rs.54,000/-. 3. On the other hand, it was contended by the opposite party that the complainant has not remitted any amount from 1994. He was remitting the amounts as per the PIC. It is mentioned that the electric connection was disconnected. According to the opposite parties a sum of Rs.57,967/- has to be paid towards arrears. 4. Evidence adduced consisted of PW1, OPW1, Exts.A1 to A5 series, Exts.B1 to B3. 5. It is seen from the evidence adduced that the opposite parties are not in a position to point out when the disconnection was done although it was admitted that the connection has been disconnected. The opposite parties are bound to disconnect and dismantle within the period specified in the Regulations. The same has not been done. As per Ext.B1 meter reading register it was pointed out that as on 16/9/1999 the complainant has consumed 1209 units. We find that there is clear inaction on the part of the opposite parties in initiating follow up action if it was found that the complainant was not remitting the electric charges. All the same as per the order of the Forum the complainant has remitted a sum of Rs.8771/- in July 2003 and the reconnection was effected. There is clear lapse on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has to wait for about 2 years for getting reconnection on account of the dispute. Hence we find that no interference is called for in the order of the Forum. The appeal is dismissed. Office is directed to forward the LCR to the Forum. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT VL. | 
