KERALA STATE CONSUMENR DISPUES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.322/02 JUDGMENT DATED.05.07.08 PRESENT:- SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER 1. The Secretary, K.S.E.B., Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, : APPELLANTS Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Thodupuzha. 3. Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Nedumkandam (By Adv.M.Manikantan) Vs Bhaskara Pillai, Kuleena House, Chekkanamkara, : RESPONDENT Nedumkandam.P.O., Nedumakandam. (By Adv.Siby Jacob) JUDGMENT SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR: MEMBER It is aggrieved by the order dated.26.12.01 in OP.87/01 of CDRF, Idukki that the opposite parties have come in appeal. By the said order they are under directions to collect amounts from the complainant and other beneficiaries only as per the terms of the original agreement or the actual consumption charges. 2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he had applied for an electric connection along with three other persons on executing a minimum guarantee agreement on 3/11/94, expecting the connection immediately. But it was given only on 5.9.01. The complainant’s further case is that at the time of execution of the minimum guarantee agreement the total amount required for the work was Rs.1,79,185/-. It is alleged that the amount at the time of execution of the work was unilaterally enhanced by the opposite parties to Rs.2,43,060/- and the complainant is not liable to pay the charges based on the revised amount. Alleging inordinate delay in giving service connection and enhancing the total amount, the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to revise the electricity bills of the complainant and other persons based on the original minimum guarantee amount entered into between the opposite parties along with compensation and costs. 3. The opposite parties in their version contended that there was no merit in the complaint as they had executed the minimum guarantee agreement fully well knowing that there would be delay for the actual execution of the work. The opposite parties pleaded that there was no inordinate delay and in the agreement itself it was clearly specified that the guarantors are liable to pay the guaranteed amount or the actual cost at the time of execution of the work which ever is higher. The opposite parties further pleaded that there was no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice and hence prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 4. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and documents Exts.P1 to P7. The Board’s official one Mr.Salim Kumar was examined as DW1 and photo copy of the minimum guarantee agreement marked as Ext.R1 on the side of the opposite parties. 5. We heard the counsel for the appellants who submitted his arguments based on the contentions taken in the version as well as the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He has vehemently argued before us that the forum ought to have dismissed the complaint finding that the complaint was not maintainable. It is his very case that the complainant along with other persons had executed Ext.R1 fully well knowing the conditions contained therein. He also submitted before us that as per clause 2 of the minimum guarantee agreement, it is agreed by the guarantors that either estimate capital cost or actual cost of the work including 10% estimate charges which ever is higher for a minimum period of 7 years has to be paid by the guarantors and in the present case though Rs.1,74,185/- was shown as the estimate cost, the actual cost was Rs.2,43,060/- that was spent for the actual execution of the minimum guarantee work and hence the complainant was liable to pay the proportionate amount of the actual charges/actual cost which was higher. It is also his case that there was no inordinate delay in the execution of the work and the complainant has also no case that there was any violation of priority in the matter of execution of work. 6. We find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that as per clause 2 of the agreement (R1) the guarantor will be liable to pay either the actual amount shown in the agreement or the actual cost of the work including 10% estimate charges, which ever is higher after the execution of the work. Though the complainant has stated that there was inordinate delay, there is no evidence to support his contentions. The forum below passed the order on the presumption that there was inordinate delay and hence the complainant is liable to pay only as per the terms of the original agreement. Since Ext.R1 is the minimum guarantee agreement and the complainant along with other three persons had signed the agreement, the terms of agreement are binding on them and in such a circumstance the appellant’s claim that the complainant is liable to pay actual cost of execution of work can only be upheld. In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order dated 26.12.01 in OP.87/01 of CDRF, Idukki thereby dismissing the complaint. In the nature and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER R.AV
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.M.A.ABDULLA SONA
......................SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR | | 
