Kerala

StateCommission

A/10/564

AE,KSEB - Complainant(s)

Versus

HANEEFA - Opp.Party(s)

B.SAKTHIDHARAN NAIR

21 Dec 2010

ORDER

 
First Appeal No. A/10/564
(Arisen out of Order Dated 30/07/2010 in Case No. CC/08/263 of District Kottayam)
 
1. AE,KSEB
KSEB SECTION,MANIMALA
KOTTAYAM
KERALA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. HANEEFA
SECRETARY,ALPRA MUSLIM JAMATH
KOTTAYAM
KERALA
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

 

APPEAL No. 564/2010

 

JUDGMENT DATED: 21-12-2010

 

 

PRESENT:

 

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU              :PRESIDENT

 

SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                   : MEMBER

 

1.      The Asst. Engineer,

KSEB Electrical Section,

Manimala, Kottayam.

                                                          : APPELLANTS

2.      The Secretary, KSEB,

Vyduthi Bhavan, Pattom,

Thiruvananthapuram.

 

(By Adv.Sri.S.Balachandran)

 

          Vs.

 

Haneefa.M.N,

Secretary, Alapra Muslim Jamath,  : RESPONDENT

Kottayam.

 

     JUDGMENT

 

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT

 

Appellants are the opposite parties in CC.263/2008 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam.  The appellants are under orders to restrict the back assessment to 30/5/2008.

2. The complainant, Secretary of the Jamath has disputed the penal bill issued for Rs.36,000/- for the alleged unauthorized extension of electric connection to the nearby quarters of the Imam.  It is the case of the complainant that the Imam and his wife started residing in the adjacent quarters on 30/5/2008 and that as the wife of the Imam was pregnant and after getting oral consent from the opposite parties 2 lights were used in the quarters by plugging current from the adjacent building.

3. The opposite parties/appellants have disputed the case of the complainant and relied on sec.126 (2) in support of the bill issued for the previous 6 months from the date of inspection.

4. Evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, PW2, Exts.A1 to A4 and Exts. B1 to B3.

5. The Forum has relied on the evidence of PW1 who has testified as to the date of unauthorized use as from 30/5/2008.  PW1 was not cross-examined on this aspect.  No evidence was adduced by the opposite parties also except filing the proof affidavit.  In the circumstances, we find that no interference in the order of the Forum is called for.  The appeal is dismissed in-limine.

 

Office will forward copy of this order to the Forum below.

 

 

JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT

 

 

 

S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR: MEMBER

 

 

VL.

 

 
 
[HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU]
PRESIDENT

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.