Kerala

Trissur

CC/07/1096

Rajan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kerala State Electricity Board - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.K.M.Thomas Raj

02 Jul 2012

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
AYYANTHOLE
THRISSUR-3
 
Complaint Case No. CC/07/1096
 
1. Rajan
Vattapparakkal veettil, Varandarappilly
Thrissur
Kerala
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Kerala State Electricity Board
Rep by Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram
Thiruvananthapuram
Kerala
2. Sub Engineer in Charge
Electrical Section, Vellikulangara
Trissur
Kerala
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONORABLE Padmini Sudheesh PRESIDENT
 HONORABLE Sasidharan M.S Member
 
PRESENT:Adv.K.M.Thomas Raj, Advocate for the Complainant 1
 
ORDER

 

 
By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:
 
          The case is that the complainant has one acre of landed property and is cultivating coconut tree, jathi, plaintain etc. He has one agricultural connection vide consumer No.4667 and it is exempted from payment of current charges. But the respondents disconnected the connection during rainy season and not restored so far. It was told that only on payment of arrears they will restore the connection. But the complainant is not liable to pay the amount since it is exempted from payment of current charges. It was realized that the respondents disconnected the connection because the complainant filed one complaint against the respondents. There is deficiency in service from respondents. Hence the complaint.
 
          2. The counter averments of respondents-1 and 2 are that the consumer No.4667 is allotted to complainant for agricultural purposes. But it is not exempted from payment of current charges. The exemption list does not contain the name of complainant. So the complainant is liable to pay the bills amount. There is arrear of Rs.3933/- from 10/2000 to 1/2008. Hence dismiss. 
          3. The 3rd respondent remained exparte.
 
          4. The points for consideration are that:
              (1) Whether there is any deficiency in service from respondents?
              (2) If so, reliefs and costs.
 
          5. The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1.
 
          6. Points: The complaint is with regard to agricultural electricity connection. It is the case of complainant that he had one agricultural connection and it is exempted from payment of current charges. But the respondents disconnected the same during the rainy season and not restored. The complainant is examined as PW1 and he deposed that no document is produced to show that the connection is free of cost. But it is his version that he has not paid any amount for the last 20 years.
 
          7. It is to be noted that no document is produced by both the parties to substantiate their case. PW1 deposed that no bill is issued to him. But the Board suggested that the bill has issued for Rs.3933/-. They also failed to produce the copy of bill. Since there is no sufficient evidence to substantiate the case there is no other way except to dismiss the complaint.
 
          8. In the result the complaint stands dismissed.
 
         
          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 2nd day of July 2012.
 
 
[HONORABLE Padmini Sudheesh]
PRESIDENT
 
[HONORABLE Sasidharan M.S]
Member

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.