KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMIISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No 83/2006
JUDGMENT DATED :07.09.2010
PRESENT
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
APPELLANT
1. K.S.E.B rep. by its
Secretary, Vaidhyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Trivandrum.
2. The Asst. Engineer, Electrical Section Office,
Kuthiathode, Cherthala
3. The Asst. Executive Engineer, Electrical sub division Office,
Pattanakkadu, Cherthala.
4. The Executive Engineer Electrical Division Office,
Cherthala.
( Rep. by Adv. Sri. B. Sakthidharan Nair )
RESPONDENT
Chellappan,
Kollamparambu,
Parayakadu P.O.,
Kuthiyathode Panchayath,
Ward No. 3 Kuthiyathode village,
Cherthala, Alappuzha Dist.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. P.V. Thomas)
JUDGMENT
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Alappuzha in O.P. No. 81/04 order dated 28.10.2005. The opposite parties are the appellants and the respondent is the complainant.
The forum below directed the opposite parties to give re-connection to the complainant (Consumer No. 2386) on a condition for the complainant pay the charge and produce wiring certificate before the opposite parties and the complainant is also allowed to get a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and cost of Rs. 500/- from the opposite parties. This order was challenged by the appellant before this commission. In short the complainant alleged that for repairing his building the meter was shifted and the opposite parties were not given reconnection. Hence he filed the complainant for reconnection and for compensation. The opposite parties filed version contented that the connection to the complainant was given on 26.6.1982 with Consumer No. 2386 for a one room tea shop and the authorized connecting load was 180 watts. The building is having a small tiled room. The meter reader reported that the meter of Consumer no. 2386 KTD was missused the opposite party visited the premises and prepared a mahazer on 17.2.2003. It is kept in a newly constructed building from near to the demolished building. Therefore the complainant filed application for shifting the meter on 21.2.2003. The connection can be given only after completing the wiring and production of the concerned documents. It also found that the building was constructed under the existing date without obeying the statutory clearance of the KSEB. Hence notice was issued. According to opposite parties, the complainant is relevant estimate amount is Rs. 4,499/- for shifting the line as per the request of the appellant /opposite parties and there is no deficiency from the part of the opposite parties. Then they prayed to dismiss the complainant with costs.
The evidence consist of pw1 and marked documents Ext. A1 to A19 and marked Ext. A1 to A19 and examined the opposite parties a witness Rw1 and marked Ext. B1 to B10. The Forum considered all these aspects and passed a considerable order. This order was challenged by the appellant.
On this day this appeal came before this commission for final hearing. The counsel for the appellant is present and there is no representation for the respondent/complainant. The commission heard in detail and perused the entire case records and the order passed by the Forum below. The Counsel for the appellant argued on the grounds of appeal memorandum that the order passed by the Forum below is not accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and not legally sustainable. Their main contention is that for the re-connection is only possible after completing the procedures contemplated in Rule 13 of the CSEE just like the wiring completion report. The counsel also submitted that from the evidence it is revealed that the existing building and line are very near and very close to each other. In such a circumstance to avoid the further contingencies, it is necessary to fulfill the same technical formalities. For this purpose the opposite parties assumed an amount Rs. 4,499/- and request the complainant to remit it for shifting the line. But in the evidence anywhere see that the respondent/complainant remitted such an amount of Rs. 4,499/- It also noted by the Forum below in their order.
This Commission is seeing that the Forum below directed the complainant to produce shifting service line and also to pay Rs. 4,499/- then the Forum below directed the opposite parties to give reconnection to the complainant consumer. It forced that the complainant failed to remit the expenses araised by the opposite parties. In other words the non connection or shifting the line is the reason due to the non payment of this money. How it will be treated as a deficiency in service committed by the appellant opposite parties? The Forum below awarded a compensation of Rs. 25,000/-with a cost of Rs. 500/- on the basis of the complainant sustained huge mental agony and financial loss due to the delay of reconnection of electricity by the opposite parties. But in the evidence it is clearly seeing that the delay is some arrogant attitude is also seeing from the part of the complainant. The complaint raised some allegations against the officers of the opposite parties and filed a complaint before the vigilance and Anticorruption Departments. But there is no evidence adduced by the complainant for corroborating such an allegation alleged by the complainant against the opposite parties. It is highly necessary that some norms and principles were necessary to award the quantum of the compensation. But in this case Forum is not having any such detailed finding for the deficiency of service and criteria of the awarding of compensation and costs. We are seeing that the order passed by the Forum below is not accordance with the provisions of law and evidence. The deficiency in service was not proved. In these circumstances there is no question of awarding the compensation is araised.
In the result, this appeal is allowed.
M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
JUSTICE. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
