By Smt.Padmini Sudheesh, President
The case is that the complainant is a farmer earning his livelihood by cultivating his land. He is a consumer of 1st respondent vide consumer No.5300 V B1 8. The connection is an agricultural connection. The said connection was free of cost. He was enjoying agricultural exemption as per application made by him from 1997 onwards. Till the month of February 2008 the complainant was enjoying the benefit of exemption. On 16/6/08 it came to the notice of complainant that RR proceedings have been initiated against him. But no notice has been given. On enquiry it was informed that he is not entitled for agricultural exemption benefit and he has to pay Rs.2,953 + 2,466 which is due from 5/97. It is false and baseless. The amount is barred by limitation. The act of respondent is deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter averments of 1st and 2nd respondents are that the connection stated in the complaint was agricultural connection. The invoice for consumer No.5300 was being paid regularly upto 5/98. After this period the current charges were pending. But the consumer had remitted current charges for the month of 11/05 and 1/06 in ‘Friends Collection Centre’, Thrissur. Again the charges were pending from 3/06 to 3/07. So a notice was served showing the details. The service connection was dismantled on 21/5/07. The consumer is liable to remit the arrear amount. On enquiry with 3rd respondent it was understood that the complainant had not been requested for agricultural exemption to Krishi Bhavan during the period 1996-97. There is no deficiency in service.
3. The counter of respondents 3 and 4 is that the complainant submitted application for exemption during 1996-97. But as per the order dated 1/4/98 of Director of Agriculture, he has not submitted application to 3rd respondent Even if time was extended till 20/5/01 no application was submitted. His name is included in the arrear notice. There was no deficiency in service from this respondent. Hence dismiss.
4. Points for consideration are that :
1) Whether there was any deficiency in service from respondents ?
2) If so reliefs and costs ?
5. The evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P4 only.
6. The complaint is filed to reinstate the agricultural connection in consumer No.5300. It is the case that this is an agricultural connection and so free of cost. But the respondents 1 and 2 issued one arrear notice and according to complainant he is not liable to pay this amount. The respondents stated that the complainant is not an exempted agriculturist and so liable to pay arrear amount.
7. It is the case of complainant that on 16/6/08 he came to know that RR proceedings have been initiated against the complainant and no notice has been given till this date. This averment may be true because no notice is produced by complainant and no copy is produced by respondents. It is the case that if the respondents 1 and 2 demanded Rs.2,953+2,466 which is due from 5/97 as arrears. But there is no arrear notice produced to show the details. Exhibit P1 to P4 do not contain the said arrear notice. The respondents contended that the complainant is not an exempted consumer. Exhibits P1 to P4 would show that the complainant has paid charges. If it was an agricultural exemption connection definitely the complainant has no need to pay any amount. But this is not the situation.
8. The prayer of complainant is to reinstate the agricultural connection. Respondents 1 and 2 would say that the connection has been dismantled on 21/5/07. But the complaint is filed with this prayer after one year. It is to be noted that there is no evidence to show that the respondents 1 and 2 have restored the connection. There is lack of sufficient evidence in this case. If reconnection is necessary complainant should follow the entire procedures for fresh connection. Since the arrear notice is not produced by anybody we are unable to cancel the same.
9. In the result the complaint is partly allowed and the complainant is directed to apply for fresh connection and the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to restore the connection as per law. There is no order for compensation and cost.
Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 20th day of June 2012.
