By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:
The complainant is a farmer earning his livelihood by cultivating in his land. He is the consumer of 1st respondent vide consumer No.4641/V. The said connection is an agricultural connection. As per the scheme offered to complainant by 3rd respondent the connection was free of cost. On 28.3.08 the 2nd respondent issued a disconnection notice. The complainant is not entitled to pay any arrears. The notice is illegal and is barred by limitation. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter averments of respondents-1 and 2 are that the complainant is a registered consumer of the service connection mentioned in the complaint. The exemption from payment of electricity charges are granted from Krishi Bhavans of concerned area. The exempted list forwarded to these respondents by Krishi Bhavan is not containing the name of complainant. So the disconnection notice was issued to the consumer and liable to pay the amount. There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents. Hence dismiss.
3. The counter of 3rd respondent is to the effect that this respondent is an unnecessary party and there is no application submitted to this respondent by complainant for getting exemption benefit. Hence dismiss.
4. The points for consideration are that:
(1) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of respondents?
(2) Other reliefs and costs.
5. The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1 and Ext. P1.
6. Points: The complainant challenging the act of respondents-1 and 2 in disconnecting the power supply issued to agricultural connection bearing consumer no.4641. It is the case of complainant that the said connection is exempted from payment of current charges. The complainant is examined as PW1 and Ext. P1 is marked. It is his version that since the connection is agricultural connection it is free of costs. He also deposed that he has submitted application to Krishi Bhavan. But no copy of application produced by complainant. There is no evidence to show that the connection is exempted from payment of current charges. It is the statement of complainant in the box that from 1997 to 2001 no bills issued and no amount paid. So there is deficiency in service on the part of KSEB in issuing timely bills.
7. The respondents-1 and 2 taken the contention that the name of complainant is not included in the exemption list forwarded by 3rd respondent. It is true that no exemption list is submitted by anybody. Since there is no other evidence except the evidence of complainant the version of complainant that no bills issued from 1997 to 2001 is to be believed. Ext. P1 is the disconnection notice produced by complainant and in which there is no mention about the amount he has to pay. The respondents also not produced any copy of bill issued to complainant. So the respondents-1 and 2 have no right to disconnect the power supply on the basis of Ext. P1. In the complaint also there is no mentioning of any amount sought to be paid by respondents-1 and 2. It is stated that on 28.3.08 the 2nd respondent issued a disconnection notice. There are no previous bills alleged to be issued to complainant are produced by KSEB. In these circumstances the respondents have no right to disconnect the power supply.
8. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondents-1 and 2 are restrained from disconnecting the agricultural connection on the basis of Ext. P1 notice. No order as to cost and compensation.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 4th day of July 2012.
