KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO:450/2009 JUDGMENT DATED:10-08-2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1. Secretary, KSEB, Vydhuudhi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. : APPELLANTS 2. Assistant Engineer, KSEB, Electrical Section, Pothupara.P.O, Peerumadu, Idukki District. (By Adv:Sri.S.Balachandran) Vs. Aljo Joseph, Ormma House, Kuttikkanam.P.O, Idukki Dist. : RESPONDENT (By Adv:Sri.Pramod Chandran) JUDGMENT SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER This appeal is preferred by the opposite parties in CC.37/07 of CDRF, Idukki. By the impugned order dated:28/10/2008 they are under directions to cancel Ext.P3 bill and to pay Rs.2000/- as cost to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which they were liable to pay interest at 12% per annum from the date of default till payment. 2. The case of the complainant before the Forum was that he had an electric connection to his residence where himself and his family were residing and on 5/2/2007, the 2nd opposite party issued a bill for Rs.5,103/- after changing the tariff to LT-VII-A. Though the complainant had approached the opposite party by a complaint on 17/2/2007, no reply was given to him and it is his further case that the KSEB Staff Association approached him to give an advertisement which he had refused. The complaint was filed praying for canceling the bill and for changing the tariff of the electric connection of the complainant. 3. The opposite parties filed version admitting that the complainant was a consumer under LT-I A tariff and on 21/1/2007 the 2nd opposite party inspected the premises of the complainant and found that the house was given for Home-stay and Resort at a rent of Rs.8000/- per day and hence a mehazar was prepared and the tariff was changed to LT VII A. It was also submitted that there was no request from the complainant for change of tariff and that they did not approach the complainant for any advertisement. Submitting that there was no deficiency of service, the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 4. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the Manager of the complainant as PW1 and the documents Exts.P1 to P5. On the side of the opposite party the District reporter of Malayala Manorama Daily was examined as DW1 and a book named Malayala Manorama Sahayi, Idukki was marked as Ext.R1. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued before us that the Forum below had gone wrong in canceling the impugned bill and directing the opposite parties to change the tariff from LT VII A. It is argued by him that Ext.R1 is conclusive proof to show that the premises of the complainant was being used as Home-stay for accommodating the tourists and that the complainant was making profit out of the said conducting of Home-stay. It is also his case that the Forum below had mis-construed the facts and evidence adduced in the case and that the direction to cancel Ext.P3 bill is against the rules and regulations of the Electricity Board. He had submitted before us that even the complainant had no case that he had not given any advertisement in the Malayala Manorama Sahayi, Idukki wherein the house of the complainant has been shown as one of the Resorts. It is also his case that even though the mehazar was not produced before the Forum, Ext.R1 was properly proved by examining the District Reporter of Malayala Manorama Daily. Thus, he canvassed for the position that the Forum below had passed the order without any appreciation to the evidence before it. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the opposite parties had issued the bill without supporting evidence and that Ext.R1 was not conclusive proof for issuing Ext.P3 bill. He has attacked the contention of the appellants/opposite parties that Ext.R1 is sufficient proof and the non production of the mahazar alleged to have been prepared was not necessary to prove the case of the opposite parties. He has also submitted that the house was having connection for domestic use only and it was never given for Home-stay or Resorts. Thus, he supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below and argued for the dismissal of the appeal filed by the opposite parties. 8. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and respondent and also on going through the records we find that it is the admitted case of both the parties that the opposite parties had issued a bill for Rs.5103/- which is marked as Ext.P3. The appellants would argue that the same was issued consequent to the detection that the premises was given for Home-stay and there was an advertisement in the Malayala Manorama Sahayi, Idukki showing that the said house was included as one of the Resorts in Idukki area. It is also argued by the learned counsel that though a mehazar was prepared, the same was not produced as a still more valid document was with them to be produced before the Forum and the same was properly proved by examining the Malayala Manorama District Reporter. We find force in the said argument of the learned counsel for the appellants. Though the complainant would say that the house was never given for home-stay or given as a resort, there is no explanation forthcoming from the side of the complainant how an advertisement appeared in Malayala Manorama Sahayi, Idukki showing that the house is included as one of the resorts. The complainant’s agent who was examined as PW1 could have very well denied the case that the house was given as home-stay or as a resort. Ext.R1, has been examined by us and in page 66 of Ext.R1 Orma House, Kuttikkanam has been included as one of the resorts. The complainant has no case that the house that finds a place in the Malayala Manorama Sahayi is not his house or it belongs to somebody else. In such a situation we are inclined to agree with the contentions of the appellants and we find that the Forum below has not properly appreciated the evidence adduced by the opposite parties. The non production of the site mehazar cannot be considered as a ground to ignore Ext.R1 (produced and marked through DW1). In the said circumstances we find that the order of the Forum below is liable to be set aside and we do so accordingly. In the result the appeal is allowed. The order dated:28/10/2008 in CC.37/07 of CDRF, Idukki is set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT VL. | 
