KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.03/04 JUDGMENT DATED : 1/9/08 PRESENT:- SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1. The Asst.Engineer, K.S.E.Board, Adimali. : APPELLANTS 2. The Secretary K.S.E.B.Pattom, Trivandrum (By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair) Vs 1. Augusti Joseph, Kunnathoor House, Kambilikandam, Mukudam.P.O., Idukki Dist. : RESPONDENTS 2.The Deputy Tahasildar, Udumbanchola, Nedumkandam JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 4/11/03 passed by CDRF, Idukki in OP.No.125/03. The complaint therein was filed to get the RR proceedings initiated against him stopped and also to prevent the opposite parties from recovery of the amount as per P3 R.R. Notice. The definite case of the complainant was that he was not served with any notice demanding the arrears of the current charges prior to the issuance of P3 R.R. Notice. It is also the case of the complainant that he remitted the current charges with respect to his agricultural electricity connection up to and inclusive of November 1998 and so the demand for arrears from February 1997 is legally unsustainable. The opposite party /KSEB filed version contending that the complainant defaulted payment of electricity charges with respect to the agricultural connection from February 1997 onwards. 2. The Forum below on an appreciation of the evidence available on record found the action initiated by the opposite parties as illegal as the complainant was not given any notice prior to initiating the R.R. proceedings . The Forum below placed reliance on the testimony of PWs 1 and 2 and P1 & P3 documents produced from the side of the complainant. The Forum below has also taken note of the fact that no contra evidence is forthcoming from the side of the opposite parties and that the testimony of the complaint as PW1 stands unchallenged. The Forum below has also taken in to consideration Ext.P1 receipt issued by the KSEB for acceptance of the current charge for the month of November 1998. Thereby it is held by the Forum below that the case of default in making the payment from February 1997 is unbelievable and unacceptable. The Forum is full justified in coming to the conclusion that the demand of the amount by way of P3 R.R. Proceedings is illegal and unsustainable. The P1 receipt and the testimony of PW1 would make it clear that there was no arrears of the current charges from February 1997. If that be so, it can safely be concluded that the demand for arrears by way of R.R. Proceedings is not correct and the said action initiated by the opposite parties especially the 2nd opposite party/KSEB would amount to deficiency in service. The KSEB has unnecessarily taken the R.R. Proceedings against a farmer who paid the arrears of current charges. Ext.P2 copy of the letter dated 15/12/98 would show that the complainant as a consumer requested the opposite party/KSEB to disconnect the agricultural electricity connection. It is also to be noted that in P2 letter it was specifically stated that water has dried and so he is not in need of the electricity connection with consumer No. 2209. The evidence tendered by PW1 with P2 letter stands unchallenged. There is no evidence forthcoming from the side of the opposite party/KSEB to substantiate their case that there was agricultural connection which was dismantled only in 2001 and there was arrears of current charges from Feb.1997 towards. On the other hand, the evidence available on record would make the case of the opposite party/KSEB unacceptable. Thus, the forum has rightly allowed the complaint in OP.125/03. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below. In the result the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order is confirmed. There will be no order as to costs. M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER Pk.
......................SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN
......................SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR | | 
