Kerala

StateCommission

A/08/60

Secretary - Complainant(s)

Versus

Abraham Cherian - Opp.Party(s)

S.Balachandran

16 May 2008

ORDER


.
CDRC, Sisuvihar Lane, Sasthamangalam.P.O, Trivandrum-10
Appeal(A) No. A/08/60

Asst. Engineer
Secretary
Asst. Exe. Engineer, KSEB
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Abraham Cherian
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU 2. SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN 3. SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. Asst. Engineer 2. Secretary 3. Asst. Exe. Engineer, KSEB

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Abraham Cherian

For the Appellant :
1. 2. S.Balachandran 3.

For the Respondent :
1.



ORDER

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.

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
 
FA.60/2008
Judgment dated : 16.5.08
 
PRESENT
 
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU              : PRESIDENT
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN          : MEMBER
SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR              : MEMBER
 
1. K.S.E.B., Vydhhudhi Bhavan,                 : APPELLANTS
    Pattom, Trivandrum
    Represented by its Secretary.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer,
    K.S.E.B, Pallom, Kottayam.
3. Assistant Engineer, K.S.E.B.,
    Pallom, Kottayam.
(By Adv.S.Balachandran)
                Vs
 
Abraham Cherian, Eruthickal House,                   : RESPONDENT
Channanikkadu kara,
Panachikkadu village, Kottayam.
 
JUDGMENT
 
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU    : PRESIDENT
 
 
          The appellants are the opposite parties in CC 180/06 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The appellants are under orders to refund a sum of Rs.4412 with 12% interest and cost of Rs.1000/-.
          2. It is the case of he complainant that he was running a factory which was closed down on account of loss sustained. It was closed in the year 2000. In March, 2001 officials disconnected the electric connection and cash deposit was adjusted in the energy charges due. Consequently the opposite parties initiated revenue recovery and realized Rs.4412/-
          3. The opposite parties filed version disputing the averments in the complaint. It is mentioned that total energy charges due as on the date of disconnection was 14240/-.  The cash deposit of Rs.12515/- was adjusted and the balance was Rs.1735/-. The above amount with interest represents Rs.4412/-
          4. We find that opposite parties have not adduced any evidence before the Forum. It was only the proof affidavit of the complainant and Ext.A1 and A2 documents that was before the Forum. In the circumstance the Forum has no option other than consider the case on the basis of the above evidence. The attempt to have the entire matter reconsidered at the appellate stage is to be deprecated. There is no reason mentioned as we find this is not a fit case to interfere. Hence the appeal is dismissed in limine.
 
          JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU              : PRESIDENT
 
 
          SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN          : MEMBER
 
 
          SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR           : MEMBER
 



......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR