By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> <br /> 1. Complainant who is a consumer under opposite party for supply of electricity to the ice factory run by him for his livelihood challenges the bill for Rs.21,076/- dated, 15-11-2003 issued by opposite party. This complaint is filed praying to restore the supply that was disconnected on 17-11-2003, to pay compensation for the financial loss suffered from 12-11-2003 by the complainant and for cost of Rs.5,000/-.<br /> 2. Opposite party filed version admitting that complainant is a consumer for supply of electricity to the ice factory. The allegations in the complaint are denied. It is submitted that on 12-11-2003 complainant had lodged a petition to get the meter replaced since the meter was burnt. The reason why the meter was burnt was not stated in this petition. On receipt of this petition on 13-11-2003 opposite party conducted an inspection of the premises and prepared a site mahazar. It was found that complainant was using the power supply in a manner which was dangerous and was not safe and secure. The fues of the supply was therefore removed by opposite party. It is stated that the meter was burnt due to the use of supply in violation of the terms in service agreement. On 15-11-2003 a bill was issued to complainant for Rs.21,076/- as per clause 44 of Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy of Kerala State Electricity Board. The details of calculation of this bill is given in the version. The service was later disconnected on 17-11-2003 on receiving information that complainant was running the factory in an unsafely manner after reinstating the fues by himself which had been removed earlier by opposite party. Complainant is liable to pay the amount and there is no deficiency in service.<br /> 3. Both sides filed affidavits by way of evidence. Exts.A1 to A4 marked on the side of complainant. Exts.B1 to B3 were marked on the side of opposite party. Either side has not adduced any oral evidence.<br /> 4. At the time of hearing it was submitted on behalf of either sides that complainant had paid Rs.44,995/- as full and final settlement towards the disputed bill in adalath conducted by opposite party. Both sides have also sweared in their respective affidavits to this effect. Counsel for complainant submitted that the original prayer in the complaint which is to restore electricity supply is not pressed any more, since the connection has already been dismantled as per request of complainant after payment of entire dues. It was further submitted on behalf of the complainant that this litigation is prosecuted even after the settlement only for claiming the financial loss suffered by the complainant due to illegal disconnection of electricity supply on 17-11-2003. It was argued by the counsel for opposite party that once the matter is settled and closed finally in adalath the complainant has no locus standii to pursue with only one part of the dispute. In our view this argument is not without substance. A mutual settlement was arrived between the parties and complainant has derived some benefit out of the settlement by reduction in the total amount that he was liable to pay. At the time of settlement (19-01-05) there was no sitting of this Forum due to the vacancy in the office of the President and Member of this Forum. The case thus continued to remain in the file. On perusing the facts and materials we find that the question whether the supply was disconnected illegally and whether complainant incurred any financial loss is directly and substantially connected to the issuance of the bill dated, 15-11-2003 for Rs.21,076/-. Since this question of liability to pay the bill has been mutually settled between the parties we consider that complainant has no locus standii to proceed with one part of the dispute. Once parties reach a mutual settlement there is an understanding of finality to the litigation. Thus settlement of any dispute should subsume any further litigation upon the same matter. In the result we consider that it is not necessary to go into the merits of this case and hold that complainant has no locus standii to proceed with this complaint since he has entered into settlement and has enjoyed the fruits of the settlement. <br /> 5. We therefore dismiss this complaint with no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> Dated this 24th day of October, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil <br /> Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A4<br /> Ext.A1 : Notice dated, 15-11-2003 issued by opposite party to complainant. <br /> Ext.A2 : Photo copy of the Judgment dated, 17-12-2004 in the High Court<br /> of Kerala, Ernakulam.<br /> Ext.A3 : Receipt for Rs.44,995/- dated, 19-01-05 from opposite party to<br /> complainant.<br /> Ext.A4 : Receipt for Rs.10/- dated, 26-02-05 from opposite party to<br /> complainant.<br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 to B3<br /> Ext.B1 : Photo copy of the Information Letter dated, 15-11-2003 by<br /> complainant to opposite party.<br /> Ext.B2 : Photo copy of the request dated, 12-11-2003 by complainant <br /> to opposite party.<br /> Ext.B3 : Photo copy of the Site Mahazar dated, 13-11-03 prepared by<br /> P. Muhammedkutty, Assistant Engineer, Tirur West.<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br />