KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.598/06 JUDGMENT DATED: 14.8.09 Appeal filed against the order passed by CDRF, Kasargod in OP.95/05 PRESENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1. The Asst.Ex.Engineer, : APPELLANTS KSEB, Electrical Major Section, Pilicode, P.O.Pilicode, Kasargod District. 2. The Secretary, KSEB, Vaidhyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair) vs. G.S.Gul Muhammed, : RESPONDENT S/o Abdul Razak ( Late), Near Padne Panchayath office, P.O.Padne, Kasargod. (By Adv.Kollamcode D.S.Jayachandran) JUDGMENT SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER By the order dated 6.6.06 in OP.95/05, the CDRF, Kasargod has directed the opposite parties to collect fixed charges as per rules from the complainant only till May 2003 and to adjust the amount paid by the complainant towards the arrears and it is aggrieved by the said directions that the opposite parties have come up in appeal calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability in the order passed by the Forum below. 2. The complainant’s case before the Forum is that he has availed the minimum guaranty connection from the opposite parties for his prawn farm in the year 1991 and agreement term was for 10 years. Though he started Farm after getting connection he had stopped the same in the year 1997. It is also his case that from August 2001 onwards there was no consumption at all and that though he had requested the 1st opposite party to dismantle his connection in the month of February 2002 the opposite party used to send bills thereafter also. Alleging that the 1st opposite party’s action is not correct, the complaint was filed praying for directions to cancel the bills that were sent after April 2003. 3. The 1st opposite party filed version for and on behalf of both the opposite parties wherein it was contended that the expiry of the minimum guarantee agreement was in 5/2003 and the complainant was irregular in payment from 8/01 onwards and the arrears upto 5/03 was Rs.12056/-. It was also submitted by the opposite parties that request for dismantling the connection could not be considered since there was arrears and the term of minimum guarantee was not over. It was further submitted that though the complainant was given installment facilities, he did not pay installments except the 1st installment and that the complainant is liable to pay the bills issued by the opposite parties. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1; and Exts.A1 to A17 on the side of the complainant. On the side of he opposite parties Ext.B1 to B3 were marked. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants argued before us that the order of the Forum below is without any appreciation of the facts and circumstance of the case . It is his very case that the Forum ought to have found that the complainant was liable to pay the minimum amount payable till May 2003 and as he did not remit the amount future bills were also sent which the complainant is liable to pay. It is also his case that even though six installments were allowed only one installment was remitted by the complainant and there after he defaulted the payment. In such a circumstance it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and that the Forum has passed an order without any appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusing the records produced we find that it is the admitted case of both the parties that the complainant had availed the service connection under minimum guarantee scheme and the scheme was for the period of 10 years and it would be over by May 2003. Thus it can be seen that even when there was no consumption the complainant was liable to pay minimum charges agreed upon by both the parties. The complainant would argue that he had stopped the business in 1997 and there was no consumption of energy from August 2001. However the opposite parties have also no case that there was consumption by the complainant after 2001. In all aspects it can be found that complainant is liable to pay minimum charges only up to May 2003. It is also noted that the complainant has given an application in 2002 to dismantle the connection. The opposite parties would contend that since there was a minimum guarantee agreement they were not in a position to dismantle the same. However it is also observed that the complainant himself had admitted that he was not paying any charges from 2001 onwards. It is also the admitted fact that the complainant was duty bound to pay minimum guarantee only till May 2003. It is observed that the Forum below has considered all these aspects into consideration and has rightly directed the opposite parties to collect arrears till May 2003 as per rules. It is also noted that there is no illegality or irregularity in the directions contained in the order dated 6.6.06 by the Forum below. In the result the appeal is dismissed confirming the order dated 6.6.06 in OP.95/05 of CDRF Kasargod . In the nature and circumstances of the present appeal there is no order as to costs. SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER ps
......................SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR | | 
