KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMIISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 592/2009
JUDGMENT DATED : 29.09.2010
PRESENT:-
SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
APPELLANT
1. The Assistant Engineer,
Electrical Section, Kulanada, Pathanamthitta.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Electrical Sub Division.
Pandalam, Pathanamthitta
3. The Executive Engineer,
Electrical Major Section,
(Electrical Division), Adoor.
4. The Lineman,
Electrical Section, Kulanada.
5. The Secretary,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Vydyuthi Bhavanam, Pattom,
Thiruvananthapuram.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. B. Sakthidharan Nair)
Vs.
RESPONDENT
1. C.I. Alexander,
Chempalethu house,
Chenneekara,
Kulanada P.O., Kulanada (via)
Pathanamthitta Dist.
2. Gopalakrishnan Nair,
Meter Reader, Electrical Section,
KSEB, Kulanada, Pathanamthitta.
3. Sunil,
Cashier,
Electrical Section,
KSEB, Kulanada, Pathanamthitta.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. Rajeev S.S.)
JUDGMENT
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Pathanamthitta in O.P. No. 74/02 order dated 31.07.2009 . The appellants are the opposite parties and the respondents are the complainant in the above O.P. The appellants prefers this appeal from the direction of the Forum below that the opposite parties are directed to install a new meter at the complainant’s house in the presence of the complainant. The opposite parties are directed to restored the power supply to the complainant’s shop rooms. The opposite parties are directed to issue revised electricity bills in place of Ext. A5, A6 and A7 bills on the basis of the average consumption of 3 months after the installation of the new meter and adjusted the remittance, if any made by the complainant on the basis of Ext. A5 , A6 and A7 bills in the new bills, in view of aforesaid direction and the findings, the Forum is not inclined to allow much compensation and costs to the complainant.
2. In short the complainant alleged that he was having two electric connections on his house with Consumer No. 1575 and one at his shop with Consumer No. 4786. According to him his electricity bill for his house was Rs. 31/- per month and for his shop was Rs. 33/- per month prior 2/99. According to the complainant several bills issued by the opposite parties were exorbitant and due to his inability to pay bribe to the meter reader. It is also alleged that the complainant’s meter was arbitrarily replaced by a faulty meter. The above acts of the opposite parties caused huge loss and sustained mental agony which is nothing but a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as well as the complainant.
3. The opposite parties appeared and filed their written version and strongly contented that the complainant was not maintainable. The bills issued by the opposite parties were not exorbitant but there are actual bills. The energy meters in the premises of the complainant were seen valid and the bills were issued on the basis of the unauthorized excess connecting load in the premises of the complainant. They contented that they never remove the meters without the consent and in the presence of the complainant. The meter was changed in the presence of the complainant and thereafter the bills were issued on the basis of actual reading in the meter. Certain bills were either cancelled or revised by the opposite parties on the basis of the representation of the complainant. The complainant never filed any complaint against the first opposite parties for the alleged document of bribe from the consumers. All the bills were genuine and legal and the complainant is liable to pay unpaid bills. The complainant is not entitled to get back the remitted bill amount. The opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service against the complainant and hence the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sort for in the complaint. Therefore they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with the cost.
4. The evidence totally consisted of Pw1 to Pw3 , and Dw1 to Dw3 Exts. A1 to A35 and Exts. B1 to B6 marked documents, after hearing both sides and on the strength of the above documentary act oral evidence adduced by both sides and the Forum below passed the above order. This appeal came before this commission for final hearing. Both the counsel for the appellant and the respondents are present. The counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the order passed by the Forum below is not as per the provisions of any law and evidence. For this instance the Counsel for the appellants invited our attention in the commends by the Forum below given in the order passed by them. “ We are not inclined to accept the contentions of either side with regard to the dispute of electricity bills.” The counsel for the appellant submitted that the Forum below traveled beyond the pleadings of both parties and evidence. Blindly taken a view only on the basis of an assumption and not accordance with the law and evidence. The cancellation of bills by the Forum below includes some bills coming under the domestic tariff also. But there is no appeal preferred by the complainant/respondent from the impugned order passed by the Forum below..
5. We this Commission perused the entire evidence adduced by both sides and submissions of both counsels before this Commission. We are seeing that the Forum below passed an order not accordance with the evidence adduced by the parties in the dispute. The Forum below unfortunately forgot one important aspect that the Forum is a fact finding body. The Forum below is not an enquiry tribunal. It is an admitted fact that the Forum below is par from a civil court. But it cannot be said that it not a court. The Forum below directed to follow the provisions of the law and evidence. It is not fair to dispose the cases on the basis of the presumption and assumption, but strictly on the basis of the law and evidence. Both counsels submitted that it is a fit case to remand back to the Forum below agreed submissions of both counsels that to remand back the case to the Forum below after fresh trial and disposal. We agreed the submissions of both counsels that to remand back this case back to the Forum below is highly necessary for the interest of justice. There are apparent errors in the order passed by the Forum below. We decided to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Forum below.
In the result this appeal is allowed and setaside the order passed by the Forum below. This case remanded back to the Forum below for the fresh trial and disposal after give ample opportunities to both sides to adduce their oral and documentary evidence and directed the Forum below to dispose this case within 3 months after the receipt of the copy of judgment.
The office is directed to send the case files to the Forum below as early as possible. Both parties are directed to suffer their on dhasti. The points of the appeal discussed and answered accordingly.
M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
VALSALASARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
