KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL NO. 56/10

JUDGMENT DATED: 26.9.11

PRESENT:

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN                    : JUDICIAL  MEMBER

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA                 :  MEMBER

Secretary, KSEB,

Vaidhyuthi Bhavan,                                    :  APPELLANT

Thiruvananthapuram.

(Rep. by Adv. Sri.S. Balachandran)

Vs

Sri. G. Murali

Thamarasseril,

Aryad South, Alappuzha.                          : RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA: MEMBER

            ­This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Alleppey in CC No. 166/03 dated 26.12.08.

          2.      The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant.

          3.      The appellant prefers to this appeal from the order passed by the CDRF in the above case, the Forum below directed the 1^st opposite party to pay the compensation of Rs.4,000/- and cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.

4.      On this day, this appeal came before this commission for final hearing the appellant is represented through the counsel and respondent is absent and there is no representation for the respondent.

          5.      The respondent is a consumer of the opposite parties, who submitted an application for getting electric connection. For this application he remitted a fee of the opposite party. An employee of the appellant visited the house, taken the estimate etc. The grievance of the complainant is that even though the no electric post is necessary, one electric post was installed by the adamant attitude of the employees of the appellant. The complainant deposited an amount of Rs.750/- on 14.1.03 for connecting charges and another Rs.750/- remitted as service charge and he got the consumer No. 20201. There after the consumer submitted an application under OYEC scheme and paid Rs.3,500/- on 1.2.03. The amount remitted includes the value of the electric post. On 22.2.2003 and the complainant submitted completion certificate for wiring. Thereafter on 7.3.03 the complainant remitted additional amount of Rs. 1,000/- for getting connection under domestic purpose. On 13.3.03, opposite parties erected an electric post in front of the house of the complainant but given electric connection on 15.3.03. As per the consumer card given by the complainant, it is noted that the electric connection was given to the complainant on 14.2.02 of the construction of his house. Thereafter on 17.3.03 the complainant has given a complaint to the 2^nd opposite party for the illegal collection of the charge for electric post even though it is not necessary for even such a connection. Hence the complainant filed this compliant for alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties by claiming compensation of Rs. 30,000/-

6.      The opposite parties filed their version and contended that on 28.11.02; opposite parties given permission for wiring the premises and on 10.12.02; submitted the application. The 4^th opposite party taken the estimate on 21.12.02 in the order of priority. As per the Indian Electricity Rules; 77,5.79 meters of height is to be maintained while the electric line crossing over the Road. On 15.5.03 the complainant submitted an application for changing the Tariff and in consequences of the enquiry to this request it was found that unauthorized wiring has done and changed the installation. In the version he submitted that on 15.5.03; opposite parties given electric connection considering his priority. In response to the complaint filed by the complainant on 17.3.03. The second opposite party inspected the premises of the complainant on 25.3.03. On 28.6.03 another installation completion report was given by fixing the connected load 2645. In July 2003 the opposite party changed the Tariff in to the domestic purpose and it is in effect from that date. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

7.      The complainant examined as PW1 and examined two other witnesses, PW1 and PW3 and documents were marked as Exts. A1 to A17. Opposite parties examined totally 10 witnesses and produce 15 documents. They were examined as RW1 to RW10 and documents were marked as Exts. B1 to B15. The Commissioner was examined as CW1 and his report was marked as Exts C1 and C2. Two other documents produced by the Municipality were marked as Exts. X1 and X2.

8.      The Forum below heard both sides and answered all the points arised for consideration. There was a delay to given connection to the complainant by the opposite parties. In Ext. A8, the opposite parties written totally against the fact stated in the version in Para 8 of the last sentence of the version. It is stated that they given electric connection on 15.3.03 considering on its priority. But the Para 8 and 9 are totally contradictory. This shows that opposite parties made some foul play for making an entry in Ext. A8. Because of their hurry for manipulation it was written as 14.2.02 instead of 14.2.03 for this entry. It can be clearly inferred that there is a delay for giving the electric connection. From the evidence of the RW2, electric post was given only on March 03. The complainant has remitted the charge of electric post even then the post was allowed after one month of its seniority. The Forum below found that there is a deficiency in service committed by opposite parties. In the circumstance, the Forum below fixed compensation as Rs. 4,000/- and cost of Rs. 1,000/-.

9.      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 law and evidence. She submitted that the opposite parties done every thing promptly and rightly and submitted that the respondent/ complainant didn’t commit no deficiency in service as per the Consumer Protection Act committed by the opposite parties.

10.    We heard in detail, and examined the entire records available in the case bundle. This commission is seeing that the 1^st opposite party who played foul plays in the case of given connection to the respondent/complainant. There is no explanation from anybody from the opposite parties that why they cause entire foul plays in the delay of providently the electric connection. It is a usual beaurocratic tactics, opposite party adopted unnecessarily hyper technicalities for the issue of connection to the respondent/complainant in right time. The contention in the version is highly contradictory with others in the documents produced by the same opposite party. It is seeing that opposite party intentionally committed manipulations. It is nothing but an offense. This delay caused inconvenience to the complainant but the very same time it caused loss to the board for getting the revenue. These types of the employees are the main reason for the problem of the public undertaking just like KSEB. We cannot understand that other opposite parties (higher officers) blindly protected this type of officer and to defend him by spending money from the KSEB. This appeal is also filed by the 1^st opposite party and appeared the counsel for the KSEB. It is quite unfair and which against the public policy. We are not seeing any reason to interfere in the order passed by the Forum below. The Forum below rightly answered all the points arised for the consideration. This order is legally sustainable we are not seeing any reason to interfere in the order passed by the Forum below. The respondent/ complainant is absent in this appeal, otherwise it is a fit case to impose heavy cost to the appellant. But we are not doing so but anyway we uphold this order passed by the Forum below. It is legally sustainable.

In the result, this appeal is dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the Forum below. In the decision, “ Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs Balbir Sing (11/2004 CPJ 12 (SC)”. The Honorable Supreme Court directed that if any deficiency or mischief will be committed by any public officer; he is personally liable to pay any such compensation cost etc from his own pocket. The money of the KSEB is the public money. It need not to be paid this compensation and cost by the 3^rd opposite party on behalf of the appellant/1^st opposite party, who committed deficiency in service in his personal capacity, he alone responsible for this. The first opposite party is liable to pay compensation and cost from his own pocket.

This appeal disposed accordance with this direction. This direction is highly necessary for the protection of the public interest. The points of the appeal discussed one by one and answered accordingly.

M.K.ABDULLA SONA: MEMBER

M.V. VISWANATHAN  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

DA