KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 696/2009
JUDGMENT DATED 31.01.2011
PRESENT:-
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SHRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
APPELLANT
Mathodan Pavithran,
Kolmotta, P.O. Parassinikadavu,
Kannur District.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. Shailajan & D.R. Rajesh)
Vs
RESPONDENTS
1. Asst. Engineer, Electrical Section,
K.S.E.B., Dharmasala, Parassinikadavu,
Kannur District.
(Rep. by Adv. V. Madavoor V. Mohan)
2. Secretary,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Vydyuthi Bhavan,
Thiruvananthapuram.
3. Junior Agricultural Officer,
Krishi Bhavan, Bakkalam P.O.,Kanool,
Kannur District.
JUDGMENT DATED: 31.01.2011
SHRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
This appeal is preferred against the dismissal of the complaint in C.C. 165/06 by the CDRF, Kannur vide order dated 1.10.2009. The complainant is the appellant herein.
The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he was the consumer of the opposite parties with effect from 9.4.02 and an agricultural connection was given to him for irrigating 63 ½ cents of coconut garden with Consumer No. 3423 and the 3rd opposite party was remitting the charges since it was an agricultural connection. The complainant has further submitted that on 20.1.2006 the first opposite party issued notice stating that the service connection was under disconnection for more than 6 months and demanded to clear the dues within 7 days. It is also submitted by him that the first opposite party was issuing bills even after June, 2006 and on enquiry he came to know that the connection was changed to domestic connection without any notice and he was charged under domestic thariff. It is his case that the service has been dismantled by the opposite party and the same amounts to deficiency in service. The complaint was filed praying for directions to re-in slate the service connection and to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/-
The first and second opposite parties contested the matter by filing version stating that the bill amounts up to 8/2002 were paid by the 3rd opposite party and that during 8/2002 the opposite parties noticed that the electricity was being used by the consumer for domestic purpose and the same was intimated to the 3rd opposite party. It was further submitted that the 3rd opposite party deleted the complainant from the list of agricultural consumers who are exempted from paying current charges. The opposite parties further submitted that the service connection was disconnected on 19.6.2005 and since no payments were made, notice was issued on 20.1.2006 giving opportunity to the complainant to restore connection and as the complainant did not approach the opposite parties with any objection or any payment the service was dismantled. Contending that there was no deficiency in service the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The third opposite party filed separate version where in it was contended that as the KSEB had intimated him that the connection was misused for domestic purpose, the complainant’s name was excluded from the list of consumers and that some other consumers were also excluded from the list who were misusing electricity for other purpose. It was further submitted that there was no deficiency on the part of the 3rd opposite party.
The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of Pw1, Dw1 and Exts. A1 to A4 and B1 to B4.
The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant vehemently argued before us that the action of the opposite party in disconnecting the service of the complainant without notice and also dismantling the service without sufficient reasons is illegal, unsustainable and contrary to natural justice. It is his further case that the opposite parties had not issued any notice to the complainant before changing the tariff from agricultural purpose to domestic purpose. The learned counsel invited our attention to the deposition of DW1 who is the Asst. Engineer of the opposite parties that he did not know about any notice given to the complainant before changing the tariff. It is also argued by the learned counsel that Dw1 has submitted that it is deficiency in service in changing tariff without giving notice. The learned counsel argued before us that the action of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service and he prayed for allowing the appeal thereby granting the reliefs to the complainant.
On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and also on perusing the records, we find that it is the admitted case of both the parties that an agricultural connection was given to the complainant and he was included in the list of consumers who are exempted from paying any electricity charges. We also find that it is without any notice that the tariff was changed from agricultural to domestic by the first opposite party. The opposite parties /respondents have no case that they have detected misuse of energy on any particular date or any site mahazar or other cogent evidence has been produced by the opposite parties to substantiate their case that the complainant has misused electrical energy. They would argue that during Monsoon season the consumption was on the higher side and that it has a presumption that the consumer was misusing energy for other purpose as no irrigation was necessary during Monsoon season. We are not impressed or inclined to accept the said contention of the opposite parties. Mere increase in consumption during Monsoon season will not give rise a reason for changing the tariff of the complainant. It is found that he had not responded to the notice given by the opposite parties in time. But it is found that he has filed a complaint before the Forum on getting dismantling notice from the opposite parties. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that even after dismantling, the complainant was getting demand notice from the opposite parties directing him to remit the amounts that fell in arrears due to non payment of the demand notice issued earlier. On an appreciation of the entire facts and circumstances of the case we find that there is clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in changing tariff without sufficient grounds especially when he was included in the list of consumers who were exempted from paying any electricity charges. We find that the complainant is entitled to get the connection restored without any payment and the 3rd opposite party respondent is directed to include the complainant in the list of eligible consumers who are exempted from paying any charges provided the scheme is still in force.
The complainant has claimed for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- paid by the opposite parties for the loss suffered by him due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. On going through the deposition of Pw1, we find that the complainant has not produced any evidence to show that he has suffered any loss due to the disconnection of service by the opposite parties, though he has pleaded that he has suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. However to meet the ends of justice, an amount of Rs. 2,000/- is ordered as compensation to be paid by the opposite parties for the deficiency in service by the opposite parties. The complainant is also entitled to a cost of Rs. 2,000/- for the proceedings through out.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part setting aside the order dated 1.10.2009 of the Forum below. The first and second opposite parties are directed to restore the connection of the complainant without realizing any charges within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The 3rd opposite party is directed to include the name of the complainant in the list of consumers who are exempted from payment of any electricity charges if the scheme is still in force. The first and second opposite parties are also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
The office is directed to return the Lower Court Records to the Forum below along with a copy of this order.
S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
ST
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 696/2009
JUDGMENT DATED 31.01.2011
PRESENT:-
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SHRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
APPELLANT
Mathodan Pavithran,
Kolmotta, P.O. Parassinikadavu,
Kannur District.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. Shailajan & D.R. Rajesh)
Vs
RESPONDENTS
1. Asst. Engineer, Electrical Section,
K.S.E.B., Dharmasala, Parassinikadavu,
Kannur District.
(Rep. by Adv. V. Madavoor V. Mohan)
2. Secretary,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Vydyuthi Bhavan,
Thiruvananthapuram.
3. Junior Agricultural Officer,
Krishi Bhavan, Bakkalam P.O.,Kanool,
Kannur District.
JUDGMENT DATED: 31.01.2011
SHRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
This appeal is preferred against the dismissal of the complaint in C.C. 165/06 by the CDRF, Kannur vide order dated 1.10.2009. The complainant is the appellant herein.
The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he was the consumer of the opposite parties with effect from 9.4.02 and an agricultural connection was given to him for irrigating 63 ½ cents of coconut garden with Consumer No. 3423 and the 3rd opposite party was remitting the charges since it was an agricultural connection. The complainant has further submitted that on 20.1.2006 the first opposite party issued notice stating that the service connection was under disconnection for more than 6 months and demanded to clear the dues within 7 days. It is also submitted by him that the first opposite party was issuing bills even after June, 2006 and on enquiry he came to know that the connection was changed to domestic connection without any notice and he was charged under domestic thariff. It is his case that the service has been dismantled by the opposite party and the same amounts to deficiency in service. The complaint was filed praying for directions to re-in slate the service connection and to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/-
The first and second opposite parties contested the matter by filing version stating that the bill amounts up to 8/2002 were paid by the 3rd opposite party and that during 8/2002 the opposite parties noticed that the electricity was being used by the consumer for domestic purpose and the same was intimated to the 3rd opposite party. It was further submitted that the 3rd opposite party deleted the complainant from the list of agricultural consumers who are exempted from paying current charges. The opposite parties further submitted that the service connection was disconnected on 19.6.2005 and since no payments were made, notice was issued on 20.1.2006 giving opportunity to the complainant to restore connection and as the complainant did not approach the opposite parties with any objection or any payment the service was dismantled. Contending that there was no deficiency in service the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The third opposite party filed separate version where in it was contended that as the KSEB had intimated him that the connection was misused for domestic purpose, the complainant’s name was excluded from the list of consumers and that some other consumers were also excluded from the list who were misusing electricity for other purpose. It was further submitted that there was no deficiency on the part of the 3rd opposite party.
The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of Pw1, Dw1 and Exts. A1 to A4 and B1 to B4.
The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant vehemently argued before us that the action of the opposite party in disconnecting the service of the complainant without notice and also dismantling the service without sufficient reasons is illegal, unsustainable and contrary to natural justice. It is his further case that the opposite parties had not issued any notice to the complainant before changing the tariff from agricultural purpose to domestic purpose. The learned counsel invited our attention to the deposition of DW1 who is the Asst. Engineer of the opposite parties that he did not know about any notice given to the complainant before changing the tariff. It is also argued by the learned counsel that Dw1 has submitted that it is deficiency in service in changing tariff without giving notice. The learned counsel argued before us that the action of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service and he prayed for allowing the appeal thereby granting the reliefs to the complainant.
On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and also on perusing the records, we find that it is the admitted case of both the parties that an agricultural connection was given to the complainant and he was included in the list of consumers who are exempted from paying any electricity charges. We also find that it is without any notice that the tariff was changed from agricultural to domestic by the first opposite party. The opposite parties /respondents have no case that they have detected misuse of energy on any particular date or any site mahazar or other cogent evidence has been produced by the opposite parties to substantiate their case that the complainant has misused electrical energy. They would argue that during Monsoon season the consumption was on the higher side and that it has a presumption that the consumer was misusing energy for other purpose as no irrigation was necessary during Monsoon season. We are not impressed or inclined to accept the said contention of the opposite parties. Mere increase in consumption during Monsoon season will not give rise a reason for changing the tariff of the complainant. It is found that he had not responded to the notice given by the opposite parties in time. But it is found that he has filed a complaint before the Forum on getting dismantling notice from the opposite parties. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that even after dismantling, the complainant was getting demand notice from the opposite parties directing him to remit the amounts that fell in arrears due to non payment of the demand notice issued earlier. On an appreciation of the entire facts and circumstances of the case we find that there is clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in changing tariff without sufficient grounds especially when he was included in the list of consumers who were exempted from paying any electricity charges. We find that the complainant is entitled to get the connection restored without any payment and the 3rd opposite party respondent is directed to include the complainant in the list of eligible consumers who are exempted from paying any charges provided the scheme is still in force.
The complainant has claimed for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- paid by the opposite parties for the loss suffered by him due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. On going through the deposition of Pw1, we find that the complainant has not produced any evidence to show that he has suffered any loss due to the disconnection of service by the opposite parties, though he has pleaded that he has suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. However to meet the ends of justice, an amount of Rs. 2,000/- is ordered as compensation to be paid by the opposite parties for the deficiency in service by the opposite parties. The complainant is also entitled to a cost of Rs. 2,000/- for the proceedings through out.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part setting aside the order dated 1.10.2009 of the Forum below. The first and second opposite parties are directed to restore the connection of the complainant without realizing any charges within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The 3rd opposite party is directed to include the name of the complainant in the list of consumers who are exempted from payment of any electricity charges if the scheme is still in force. The first and second opposite parties are also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
The office is directed to return the Lower Court Records to the Forum below along with a copy of this order.
S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
ST
