KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM APPEAL NO.404/03 JUDGMENT DATED: 5/9/08 PRESENT:- SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER 1.The Asst.Engineer, KSEB, Pandikkad, Electrical Section, Pandikkad : APPELLANTS 2.The Asst.Ex.Engineer, KSEB, Wandoor. 3. The Secretary, KSEB, Trivandrum Vs Kooliyodan Alavi, S/o.Kunhi Mohammed, : RESPONDDENT Centruy Hotel, Pandikkad, Malappuram JUDGMENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order dated 13.12.2002 passed by CDRF, Malappuram in OP.No.250/00. The appellants are the opposite parties in original petition mentioned above. 2. The brief of the case is that the complainant her received a bill from the opposite party for the payment of Rs.37,143/-. According to the complainant it is not sustainable to pay the bill amount and hence the complaint filed. The opposite party would say that the complainant has increased the connected load and hence justified in issuing the penal bill. The Forum below allowed the complainant and cancel the bill for Rs.37,143/-. 3. The reason mentioned in the order passed by the Forum below is that the disputed penal bill cannot be supported on the ground of increase in the connected load. To validate a penal bill there should be increase the connected load and the energy should be used for a higher tariff. The Forum below found that there was no evidence to show that the energy was used for a higher tariff and further found that this action of the opposite party cannot be sustained. The order is only coming one page and there is no details available in the order. It is not a speaking order. The counsel for the appellant vehemently argued on the basis of the grounds of appeal moreover that the order of the Forum below is wrong and illegal and also against the law and evidence. The counsel for the appellant also submitted that there was no sufficient opportunity given to the appellant/opposite party to adduce their evidence. 4. The order passed by the Forum below is not legally sustainable. It is an incomplete order. In other words it can be say that it is only an opinion. The counsel for the appellant submitted that this case may be remanded to the lower Forum for fresh disposal after taking the evidence from both sides. This Commission is having a wrong opinion that submission of the counsel for the appellant is reasonable and justifiable. We feel that remand this matter to the Forum below is necessary for the ends of justice. In the result the appeal is allowed the order of the Forum below is set aside and direct the Forum below to dispose this complaint with in three months from this day after given proper opportunity to both sides of the complaint to adduce their oral and documentary evidence. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Forum below on 6/10/08 at 10 AM. The office is directed to transmit the order and case bundle immediately to the Forum below. M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Pk.
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA | | 
