Kerala

StateCommission

A/12/893

ASST.X.ENGINEER,KSEB - Complainant(s)

Versus

AYSHA BEEVI - Opp.Party(s)

B.SHAKTHIDHRN NAIR

30 Sep 2015

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.893/2012

JUDGMENT DATED 30/09/2015

 (Appeal filed against the order in C.C No.70/2010 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram dated, 27/08/2012)

 

PRESENT:

SMT. A. RADHA                            :         MEMBER

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR :        JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS    :        MEMBER

 

APPELLANTS:

 

1. The Assistant Executive engineer,

Electrical Major Section, Parappanangadi,

Malappuram-676 307.

 

2. The Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board,

Thiruvananthapuram-695 004.

 

(By Adv: B. Sakthidharan Nair)                   

 

                   Vs

 

RESPONDENTS:

 

1. Aysha Beevi A.M., W/o. Abdul Rahim,

CP’s Villa, Neduva Post, Puthanpeedika,

Parappanangadi, Malappuram District-676 307.

 

2. Fathia Sahla, CP’s Villa, Neduva Post,

Puthanpeedika, Parappanangadi,

Malappuram District-676 307.

3. Mohammed Wazeem, CP’s Villa,

Neduva Post, Puthanpeedika,

Parappanangadi, Malappuram District-676 307.

 

4. Aysha Aleena, CP’s Villa, Neduva Post,

Puthanpeedika, Parappanangadi,

Malappuram District-676 307.

 

(By Advs:  Jaideep G Nair & Others)                    

 

JUDGMENT

 

SMT. A. RADHA  :  MEMBER

 

          Appellants are the opposite parties who preferred this appeal against the order passed in C.C No.70/2010 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram.  The respondents are the complainants 1 to 4 the legal heirs of deceased Abdul Rahim, S/o. Late Avakoya Naha who were proprietors of Kerala Ice and Cold Storage having Consumer No.300/278 under the industrial tariff. 

2.  The opposite parties demanded Rs.9,74,280/- as per bill dated 15/02/2010 for current charges from 23/03/1992 to 15/02/2010.  The electric connection was dis-connected on 23/03/1990 due to electrocution of one person and thereafter the connection was neither reconnected nor dismantled after six months of dis-connection.  Hence the complaint is filed for cancellation of the bill dated 15/02/2010 along with compensation of Rs.2000/- and cost of Rs.7,000/-.

          3.  The contention raised in the version by the opposite parties are that the electric connection of Consumer No.300/278 was disconnected on 23/03/1990 due to the fatal accident of one person due to the unauthorized extension from Consumer No.448 owned by Patheevi, W/o. Avakoya Naha.  As per the direction of electrical inspector the defects pointed out were rectified but the defects pointed out in Consumer No.300/278 was not corrected which resulted in the dismantling notice and the connection was not disconnected.  The consumer had not remitted the current charges from 03/90 to 10/99.  The service connection to 300/278 was disconnected as per the direction of electrical inspector.  The consumer had not rectified the defects nor disconnected the connection.  It is also noticed that the motors and machineries were removed from the factory alleging that the machinery got damaged due to disconnection which is a false allegation.  On 7/9/1993 an application was submitted by Avukoya Naha as he wished to change the Ice Factory to Vermicelli Production Centre.  As per rules a service which was under disconnection for more than six months, the service connection has to be dismantled with notice.  The consumer has to remit regular current charge from 3/90 onwards.  As the dismantling was not carried out the predecessor of complainants had to remit arrear current charges of Rs.1,75,520/- as on 15/05/2001.     A complaint filed before the Consumer Commission for compensation was dismissed.  As per the connected load the fixed charge portion again accrued to Rs.3,82,731/- with SC amounting to Rs.5,91,549/- with interest @ 24% and 18% total Rs.9,74,280/-.  This was happened because of the non-submission of dismantling procedure, moreover due to the submission of application not to disconnect the service connection.  The non-payment of arrears of current charges resulted in the RR action through District Collector for realizing the arrear amount.  The R.R. action was challenged by the legal heirs which does not come under the purview of the Forum and no deficiency in service can be attributed upon the opposite parties.

          4.  No oral evidence adduced by the complainants and filed affidavit and produced Exbts.A1 and A2 on the part of opposite parties DW1 was examined and Exbts. B1 to B10 were marked.

          5.  Heard both sides in detail and had gone through the documents.  It is an undisputed fact that the complainants are the legal heirs of the Consumer No.300/278.  The connection was for industrial purpose and had obtained by the deceased grandfather who was the proprietor of Kerala Ice and Cold Storage.  The electric connection was dismantled due to electrocution of current on 23/03/1990.  The Workmen Compensation directed the Electricity Board to pay the compensation with interest thereafter directed the consumer to dismantle the electric connection.  The electrical inspector inspected the premises of the complainant in 1991 and found out unauthorized extension in the Consumer No.448 and directed to dismantle which was not complied by the consumer.  The appellant disconnected the electrical connection in 1990 whereas the procedure for dismantling within six months was not done nor disconnected the energy.  So far the arrear accrued from 23/03/1992 till 15/02/2010. As per Section 41(3)(b) of KSEB terms and conditions of supply, 2005 “no service shall be kept disconnected for more than six months continuously at a time.  Such services will be dismantled by the Board and the agreement terminated and the Assistant Executive Engineer may consider any request made by the Consumer within six months of disconnection and verify the merits, provided, the consumer undertakes the responsibility of safe custody of equipments and pay the prescribed charges.  However, Sub Section (4) of Section 41 states that “no service shall remain disconnected continuously for a period exceeding six months for non payment of amount due to the Board.  If the dues are not paid within six months period of disconnection, the service shall be dismantled and agreement terminated immediately after six months of disconnection after giving 15 days notice to the consumer”.  All these formalities were correctly followed by the appellant which is in evidence in the instant case.  After dismantling the request was already there not to disconnect the connection from the consumer. The consumer/complainant had not complied formalities within that period.  If the connection is dismantled due to fault committed by the consumer’s predecessor the authority is vested on the appellant to issue the arrear bills for the period in question for non-payment.  It is clear from documents and evidence that the consumer, predecessor of the complainant nor the legal heirs paid any amount due as arrear bill entitled to the appellants.  Hence we are of the view that the complainants are liable to pay the arrear bill as per law.

          In the result, appeal is allowed setting-aside the order passed by the Forum Below.

The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Forum Below along with LCR.

 

 

A. RADHA           :        MEMBER

 

 K. CHANDRADAS NADAR :  JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

 

SANTHAMMA THOMAS     :        MEMBER

 

 

Sa.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER

                                                                  DISPUTES REDRESSAL

                                                           COMMISSION

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPEAL NO.893/2012

JUDGMENT DATED 30/09/2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sa.