KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL 957/2003

JUDGMENT DATED: 26.6.2010

PRESENT

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR               : MEMBER

Kiliyamannil Saidalavi,                                  : APPELLANT

S/o Mohammed, Matholi Quarters,

Kannathupara,

Civil Satation, (P.O) Down Hill,

Malappuram.

(By Adv.K.Hamza)

    Vs. 

Kannancheri Apputty @ Parameswaran,        : RESPONDENT

S/o (Late) Kunhikuttan,

(P.O) Kodur, Ummathur,

Malappuram District.

JUDGMENT

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR     : MEMBER

          By the order dated 24.2.03 in OP.187/02, the CDRF, Malappuram has directed the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.4200/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of complaint till payment with cost of Rs.1000/-.  It is aggrieved by the said directions that the present appeal is filed by the opposite party calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below.

          2. The complainant has approached to the Forum alleging that though an amount of Rs.4200/- had been collected by the opposite party for taking an electric connection from the Electricity Board, the opposite party did nothing to get the connection and hence complaint was filed praying for directions to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.4200/- with Rs.25000/- as compensation and cost.

          3.  The opposite party filed version denying the allegations in the complaint.  It was admitted that as requested by the complainant the opposite party had effected wiring for getting agricultural connection and gave the required documents for producing before the electricity office.  However the opposite party had disputed the receipt of the amount of Rs.4200/- and contended that he had not given any such receipt as stated by the complainant in the complaint.  Submitting that there was no deficiency in service the opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 

          4. The Forum below marked the documents produced by the complainant as Exts.P1 and P2 and believing the case of the complainant the Forum had passed the impugned order.

          5. The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party vehemently argued before us that there was no such receipt issued by the opposite party and that the document produced in support of the allegations and the averments in the complaint are contrary in nature.  He has attacked the finding of the Forum below that the signature of the opposite party in the version and signature in Ext.P1 are similar.  It is his very case that signature in Ext.P1 is a manipulated and concocted one.  It has no similarity with the signature in the version.  It is also his case that Forum below is not competent to verify whether the signatures in P1 receipt and version are one and the same.  It is his further case that Ext.P1 is a false document created for the purpose of the case by the complainant and that the appellant had not issued any such receipt.  The learned counsel submitted that it was without any oral evidence that the Forum below had passed the impugned order which is liable to be set aside.

          6. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusing the records it is found that the complainant has a case that the opposite party had not done anything in connection with the taking of the electric connection from the Electricity Board.  The opposite party in his version has submitted that he has done the wiring works in the premises of the complainant for taking agricultural connection and he has also given documents in the capacity of wiring contractor which are to be produced before the electricity office.  On an appreciation of the document produced as Ext.P1 it is seen that the document is in a plain paper which contains  certain entries.  But when the opposite party had disputed the veracity of the document it was incumbent on the Forum to get it verified in the proper way.  Moreover the opposite party/appellant had stated that he had done certain works in the premises of the complainant.  Without verification of the same Forum below had ventured in passing the order on the presumption that the appellant had not done any work and did not return the amount.  It is also noted that though the opposite party/appellant had raised a contention regarding limitation that was also not considered by the Forum below.  It is seen that the Forum below has completely believed the case of the complainant without any cogent evidence.  The finding of the Forum below that there was no case for the opposite party that the said work was done is also not correct as in the version, the opposite party had clearly stated that he had done some works for getting agricultural connection and had given the required papers also to the complainant. Apart from filing the complaint and producing certain papers, the complainant has not adduced any evidence in support of his case.   In such a circumstance the order passed by Forum below can not be sustained from any corner.  The same is liable to be set aside and hence it is done so accordingly.

          In the result the appeal is allowed.  The order of the Forum below dated 24.2.2003 in OP.187/02 is set aside.  In the facts and circumstance of the present appeal there is no order as to costs.

          SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR               : MEMBER

ps