NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/983/2010

V.N. NEPOLEAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

24 May 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 983 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 27/10/2009 in Appeal No. 79/2009 of the State Commission Kerala)
1. V.N. NEPOLEANVilayil Padinjattathi, Mathilil, Thrikkadavoor Village, Pernad P.O.KollamKerala ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR.Secretary, Kerala State Electricity BoardThirunannathapuramKerala2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEERElectrical Major SectionPerinadKerala ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 24 May 2010
ORDER

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.

 

The revision is fixed for admission today. The Petitioner has sent an application that the revision be allowed. I have gone through the record. 
The District Forum vide order dated 31.10.2008 has set aside the electricity bill raised by the Respondent and had directed to collect only domestic tariff from the Complainant-Petitioner. This order was challenged by the Respondent-Opposite party before the State Commission. The State Commission found that the Complainant was not residing in the premises where their coir manufacturing unit was functioning. In fact, the complainant had also admitted that the premises was used for manufacturing coir. As per site mahazar D1, a motor pump of 1HP, computer, printer etc. were found in the premises. The Complainant admitted that the premises was used for coir manufacturing. The motor pump which was instituted in the premises was used for pumping water which would used for colouring coir.
          Having all these facts into consideration, the opposite party had issued the electricity bill for commercial purpose. The State Commission after appreciation of all the relevant facts has rightly come to the conclusion that the premises was being used for commercial purpose and, as such, the Petitioner-Complainant was required to pay electricity charges for commercial purpose instead of domestic purpose. The State Commission had, therefore, allowed appeal and set aside the order passed by the District Forum. I am in complete agreement with the reasoning and decision arrived at by the
 State Commission and the order of the State Commission does not call for any interference whatsoever in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since I do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the order of the State Commission. The revision is accordingly dismissed.


......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER