Kerala

StateCommission

A/09/591

The Secretary, KSEB - Complainant(s)

Versus

K.V.Cyriac - Opp.Party(s)

B.Sakthidaran Nair

05 Jan 2010

ORDER

First Appeal No. A/09/591
(Arisen out of Order Dated 30/06/2009 in Case No. CC 26/08 of District Kottayam)
1. The Secretary, KSEBKerala ...........Appellant(s)

Versus
1. K.V.CyriacKerala ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE :
HONORABLE JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT
PRESENT :

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.

ORDER

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
          VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
 
APPEAL 591/05
JUDGMENT DATED 05.01.2010
PRESENT
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU           -- PRESIDENT
 
1. The Asst.Engineer,
    Electrical Section,
    Kaduthuruthy,Kottayam.
2. The Secretary,                                                    -- APPELLANTS
    KSEB. PatTom.
       (By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair)
                    Vs.
Mr.K.V.Cyriac, Secretary,
Church Committee of St.Jude Church,
S.J.Mount, Arunassery,                                        -- RESPONDENT
Kaduthuruthy, Kottayam.
   (By Adv.S.Renganathan)
                                                 JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT
          The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.26/08 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The energy bills issued by the appellant for a sum of Rs.
1563/- dated 20.7.06 and bill for Rs.4920/- dated 16.3.07 stands cancelled.
          2. It is the case of the complainant/authorities of St.Jude Church, that they have been back assessed for the period from 4/03 to 8/03. The same is alleged as deficiency in service.
          3. It is the case of the opposite parties that the bills were issued only with respect to the connected load of 200 watts. whereas the actual connected load were 2200 watts. It is also contended that the meter was replaced on 26.9.03, and hence the difference. Ext.A2 bill for Rs.1563/- is with respect to the excess energy charges and Ext.A3 bill Rs.4920/- is for the connected load which was omitted to be included.
          4. We find that so far as the connected load is concerned although there is deficiency in not issuing the bills correctly the complainant cannot claim that they have only a connected load of 200 watts. The complainant has no case that the connected load is only 200 watts and hence we find that the finding of the Forum cancelling Ext.A3 bill for Rs.4920/- cannot be sustained. The above finding is set aside.
          5. So far as Ext.A2 bill for excess energy charges is concerned there is no explanation for omitting to issue the bill till 20/7/06 although the matter was replaced on 26.9.03.   Hence the finding in this regard is sustained.
          In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The order of the Forum cancelling Ext.A2 bill for Rs.1563/- is sustained. The order cancelling Ext.A3 bill for Rs.4920/- is set aside. The respondent/complaint is liable to pay Rs.4920/- vide Ext.A3 bill. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.
 
JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU          -- PRESIDENT
 
PRONOUNCED :
Dated : 05 January 2010

[HONORABLE JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU]PRESIDENT