DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 30th day of November 2010
Present : Smt. Seena.H, President
: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing: 25/05/2010
C.C.No.74/2010
1. Assanar @ Vellakutty
S/o. Kunjahammed
Puthankulamb
Vavulliapuram Post
Alathur
Palakkad -
(Adv.A.K. Muhammed Rafi)
2. Beepathumma
W/o. Kunhalan Puthankulamb
Vavulliapuram
Alathur
Palakkad. - Complainants
(Adv A.K. Muhammed Rafi)
Vs
1. Assistant Executive Engineer
K S E B
KSEB Electrical Major Section
Alathur Taluk
Palakkad
(Adv L. Namassivayan)
2. The Assistant Engineer
Electrical Major Section
K S E B
Alathur
Palakkad
(Adv L. Namassivayan)
3. Secretary
K S E B Vydhyuthi Bhavan
Thiruvananthapuram - Opposite parties
(Adv. L. Namassivayan)
O R D E R
By Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member
Complainants are consumers of opposite parties using electricity for agricultural purpose. The complainants are having agricultural land within the limit of Tharur Krishi
- 2 -
Bhavan under the electricity connection vide consumer No.7531,7533. The complainants are applied before the Tharur Krishi Bhavan for exemption from electricity charges. The Agricultural Assistant Director exempted them from paying the electricity charges. After the communication of exemption on 01/07/2005 obtained from Krishi Bhavan the complainants have not paid any electricity charges. Subsequently 1st opposite party issued a notice to the complainants calling upon them to pay the arrears of electricity charges before 05/01/2007. The complainants have filed their grievance to the opposite party directly and in writing. But there was no remedy. Hence the complainants were filed one complaint as CC 59/2007 before this Honourable Forum seeking an order directing Tharur Krishi Bhavan to pay the electricity charges to complainants with compensation and directing the KSEB to issue separate bills of electricity consumption for agricultural purpose. The complaint No. 59/07 is allowed on 30/10/2009. During the pendency of CC 59/07 the opposite party disconnected the electricity connection in the year 2008. After the order in CC 59/07 the opposite party issued two bills separately mentioning the amount paid by the complainants and Krishi Bhavan. As per the order in CC 59/07 the complainants directed to pay the electricity charges within one month. Complainants have paid the electricity charges. Thereafter the opposite parties sent a notice to complainants stating that the complainants are to be paid the interest for default amount. Complainants are farmers. Due to the non availability of electricity the agriculture was destroyed. Thus the complainants have lost Rs.1,10,000/- on the account of agriculture and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony, Rs.1,000/- as cost of the notice charges.
The act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and mental agony to the complainants. Hence complainants pray an order directing the opposite parties
to reconnect the electricity connection of complainants under the consumer No.7531, 7533 and
to pay Rs.1,21,000/- as the compensation for damages.
The opposite parties filed version stating the following contentions. The opposite parties stated that as per the Order in CC 59/2007 they have issued the split bill to the complainants. But the complainants have not paid the amount. The complainants and the Krishi Officer have not paid the electricity bill in each month. So the opposite
- 3 -
parties stated that the complainants and the Krishi Officer are liable to pay the bill amount with interest. Further opposite parties stated that the complainants are the consumers of Opposite parties and they are obeyed the rules. The complainants are not paid the bill amount with interest. Therefore the opposite parties submitted that they are returned the bill amount to the complainants. The opposite parties are not ready for paying the compensation and cost. Finally opposite parties stated that the electricity connection was not reinstated till the complainants have paid the bill amount with interest. Hence the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
Complainants and opposite parties filed chief affidavit. Complainant filed documents. Exhibit A1 to A5 marked.
Issues to be considered are:
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
If so, what is the relief and cost?
Issues I & II
We perused relevant documents on record. After Order in CC 59/07 opposite parties directed to issue separate electricity bills to the complainants and Krishi Officers. According to Exhibit A3 series the 2nd opposite party issued notice dated 22/10/2009 to complainants for paying minimum guarantee amounts. As per A2 series the complainants have issued Demand Draft as the same amount in Exhibit A3 series to the 2nd opposite party dated 15/12/2009. Thereafter on 15/01/2010 the opposite parties sent notice stated that the complainants are liable to pay the bill amount with interest. As per the records produced by the complainants, show that 2007-2009 was the litigation period. The complainants are ready to pay the minimum guarantee amounts. But the opposite parties are not ready to give the separate electricity bills clearly showing the part to be paid by the complainants and Krishi Officers. After the order in CC 59/07 the opposite parties have issued split bill to the complainants and Krishi Officer. The complainants are paid the minimum guarantee amounts to the opposite party. But the opposite party has not accepted the bill amount and stated that the complainants are liable to pay the interest of
- 4 -
the default amount. Also the 2nd opposite party has not reinstate the electric connection of the complainants. As per Exhibit A3 series the opposite party has sent notice dated 22/10/09 for paying minimum guarantee amount of Rs.13,134/- and Rs.16,169/- to the complainants. No interest was stated in Exhibit A3 series.
In the above discussions we hold the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. So we direct the opposite parties to accept Demand Draft of Rs.13,134/- and Rs.16,169/- sent by the complainants without the interest of the default amount. The complainants are ready to pay the minimum guarantee amount of the electricity charges because the agricultural Assistant Director exempted them from paying electricity charges. The opposite parties have disconnected the electricity connection during the pendency of CC 59/07. The complainants stated that they have lost of Rs.1,10,000/- from the agricultural property due to non-availability of electricity. No documentary evidence was produced by the complainants to show the loss of Rs.1,10,000/-
In the result complaint partly allowed.
We order the following.
The opposite parties directed to accept the Demand Drafts as the amount of Rs.13,134/- and Rs.16,169/- without interest of the default amount.
To reinstate the electricity connection of complainants as the consumer numbers 7531 and 7533 within one month from the date of order.
Pay Rs.4,000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainants
If the opposite parties failed to accept the Demand Draft and reinstate the electricity connection within the ordered period, directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainants.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of November, 2010
PRESIDENT (SD)
MEMBER (SD)
MEMBER (SD)
- 5 -
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of Complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of Opposite party
Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext. A1 – Copy of order in CC.59/2007 dated 30th September 2009.
2. Ext. A2 series– Copy of Demand Drafts dated 15/12/09
3. Ext. A3 series - Copy of letter dated 22/10/2009
4. Ext. A4 - Copy of letter issued from Forum For Consumer Justice
5. Ext. A5 – Copy of letter dated 15/01/2010
Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite Party
Nil
Commission Report
Nil
Forums Exhibits
Nil
Costs - allowed.
Rs.4000/-
