KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL 907/2004

JUDGMENT DATED 30.12.2010

PRESENT:-

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN      : MEMBER

SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR           : MEMBER            

APPELLANTS

1.     Chairman,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

Vydhuthi Bhavan, Pattom,

Thiruvananthapuram.

2.     Assistant Engineer,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

Electrical Section,

Unnikulam.

                                          ( Rep. Adv. B. Sakthidharan Nair)

                                        Vs

RESPONDENT

          Cheriyan E.C.,

          Edattam Kuzhiyil,

          Kallankode P.O.,

          Kakkayam(Via) Kozhikode Dist.

JUDGMENT

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN :    MEMBER

This appeal is preferred against the order dated 2.8.2004  of CDRF, Kozhikode.  By the impugned order the opposite parties are under directions to collect @ Rs. 142/- per month from the complainants from the date of obtaining connection as per the Ext.   B2 agreement and to issue bill only for the actual consumption and also to adjust the excess amount  if any levied from the consumers towards future bills. The Forum has also directed the opposite parties to reconnect the connection to two consumers whose connections were disconnected on payment of arrears as per the directions given earlier.

The complainant representing other 24 consumers  also approached the Forum stating that they had entered  into an agreement, with the opposite parties for getting connection as per the minimum guarantee agreement and violating  the terms of agreement,

the opposite parties were collecting huge amounts from them.  In spite of their protest, the opposite parties  were collecting charges over and above the agreed rates which amounts to unfair trade practice .  Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to collect charges only as per the agreed rates along with other reliefs. .

          The opposite parties in their version contended that though minimum guarantee agreement was executed on 27.3.1996 the work was completed only in September, 2000 and it was the specific condition that the guarantors agreed to pay 25% of the estimated capital cost or actual cost of the work including 10% establishment charges  for 7 years.   The actual cost was estimated as Rs. 1,50,440 due to the increase in the cost of line materials and thus each  guarantor  was  liable to pay an amount of Rs. 1,591.19 instead of Rs. 1426.88 for a period of 7 years and contented that there was no deficiency in service on their part.  Thus they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

          The evidence adduced consisted of the oral testimony of Pw1  and Exts. A1 to A6 on the side of the complainant.  Exts. B1 to B3,  were marked on the side of the opposite parties. 

The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued before us that Clause  2 of the B2 Agreement specifically empowers  the opposite parties  to realize 25% of  the estimated capital  cost or the actual cost of the work  including 10% of establishment charges for a minimum period of 7 years.  He has also submitted before us that though the amount shown in Clause I of the agreement was Rs. 1,48,395.50.  The actual amount that needed for the completion  of the work was Rs. 1,50,440/- and thus the guarantors/consumers were liable to pay an amount  of Rs. 1,591.19 instead of Rs. 1,426.88.  He has also advanced the contention that the guarantors/consumers were liable to pay the said amount or the charges for the actual consumption, whichever is higher.   On a perusal of Clause 2 of the Agreement,   we also  find that the guarantors  are liable to pay 25% of  the estimated capital cost or the actual cost of the work including 10% establishment charges for a minimum  period of 7 years.  But we find that the opposite parties did not adduce any evidence to support their contention that their actual  cost of work was 1,50,440/-. The Forum below has also found that no evidence  was  adduced by the opposite parties  regarding the enhancement charges.  We find that in the absence of evidence the opposite parties are not entitled to collect  more than what is stated in the agreement.  ie. @ Rs. 1,426.88 per year for 7 years.  However the Forum has also directed to collect charges only for the actual consumption of electricity consumed by the guarantors/consumers.  We find that  such an order can not be justified.  The guarantors are liable to pay minimum guarantee amount or the charges for the actual consumption which ever is higher per month for a period  of 7 years.  Thus the direction to collect only the actual charges for actual consumption and refund any excess if any cannot be justified The consumers who want to restore the connections are also liable to pay the charges afore mentioned  and the opposite parties are directed to give re connection on  payment of the arrears.

          In the result the appeal is allowed in part with the modifications   as indicated above thereby the opposite parties are entitled to collect charges as shown in Ext. B2  agreement  or the charges for the  actual consumption whichever is higher.  The consumers who want to restore the connections be given re connection on payment of the arrears.  As far as the present appeal is concerned there shall be no order as to costs.

                                VALSALA SARANGADHARAN      : MEMBER

                                S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR           :  MEMBER

ST