Kerala

Trissur

CC/07/367

Balkisa - Complainant(s)

Versus

Asst. engineer - Opp.Party(s)

A.D.Benny

04 Jan 2010

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Ayyanthole , Thrissur
consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/367

Balkisa
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Asst. engineer
Assistant Engineer
Assistant Secretary
Thrissur Corporation
Swapna
Mafeena
Anshad
Ibrahim
Rajesh
Shylaja
Shakeela
Banu
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Padmini Sudheesh 2. Rajani P.S. 3. Sasidharan M.S

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. Balkisa

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Asst. engineer 2. Assistant Engineer 3. Assistant Secretary 4. Thrissur Corporation 5. Swapna 6. Mafeena 7. Anshad 8. Ibrahim 9. Rajesh 10. Shylaja 11. Shakeela 12. Banu

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. A.D.Benny

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




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.

 

 
 
By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:
 
            The complainant’s case is that the complainant is the consumer of the respondents vide consumer No.10901 which is in the name of her husband. After his death the connection is using by the complainant. The respondents-4 to 11 are the complainant’s children and no relief is sought against them. The respondents-1 to 3 have disconnected the electric connection on 8.1.2007 without any notice. They have given bill for Rs.15,056/- without any signature or seal as arrears from 2002 onwards. This bill is illegal and also time barred and no arrears is pending against the complainant. Hence the complaint is filed.
 
            2. The respondents called absent and declared exparte.
 
            3. The complainant filed affidavit and the disputed bill which is marked as Ext. P1.
            4. The complainant’s case is that the electric connection was disconnected without any notice. When she enquired about the reason she was given the Ext. P1 bill for Rs.15,056/-. As per this the electricity charges from 2002 onwards is in dues. But no arrears is pending against her. The bill was not even signed or sealed. Hence according to the complainant, she is not liable to pay the Ext. P1 bill. There is no evidence to the evidence produced by the complainant.
 
            5. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the Ext. P1 bill stands cancelled. No order as to costs and compensation. 
 

             Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 4th day of January 2010.




......................Padmini Sudheesh
......................Rajani P.S.
......................Sasidharan M.S