KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. APPEAL No. 275/2008 JUDGEMENT DATED : 25-02-2010 PRESENT: SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER APPELLANTS 1. Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. Deputy Chief Engineer, Distribution, K.S.E.B., Alleppey. 3. Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, K.S.E.B., Kuthiyathodu, Alappuzha. (Rep. by Adv. S. Balachandran) Vs RESPONDENT M.N. Ajayagosh, Manezhathu House, Project Colony, Aroor, Cherthala, Alappuzha. JUDGMENT SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The order dated 29-04-2008 in CC No. 48/2006 of CDRF, Alappuzha is being assailed in this appeal by the opposite parties on the ground that the Forum below did not appreciate the evidence of payment of the amount by the opposite parties at the time of passing the order. 2. The complainant approached the Forum stating that the opposite parties did not pay the amount towards compensation for the trees cut and removed by them even though he had given repeated requests. The 3rd opposite party filed version stating that the Tahsildar appointed by the opposite parties has assessed the compensation and the same is to be paid from the office of the Tahsildar functioning at the Collectorate, Alappuzha. It was also contended by them that they are not liable to pay the compensation as required by the complainant. 3. The opposite parties filed the valuation statement, which is marked as Ext.B1. On the side of the complainant Ext.A1 to A4 were marked through the complainant who was examined as PW1. 4. The short question that attracted our attention at the time of hearing this appeal is whether a complaint for compensation towards the trees cut and removed by the opposite parties in drawing the electric line is maintainable before the Forum. The learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the complaint was not maintainable and the Forum ought to have dismissed the complaint without going into the merits of the case. However, it is also submitted by the learned Counsel that the amount was paid to the complainant on 17-03-2007 ie, before the order was passed and the learned Counsel for the complainant in his argument note has also stated that the complainant had received the amount and it was only the interest from the date of tree cutting till the date of payment that was claimed by the complainant. The learned Counsel for the appellant has produced before us the receipt showing the payment of the amount of Rs. 2,713/- to the complainant on 17-03-2007. A copy of the argument note submitted by the Counsel for the complainant before the Forum is also produced by the learned Counsel for the appellant herein. On a perusal of the said documents and on an appreciation of the entire facts and circumstance of the case, we find that the Forum ought to have considered the said aspects before passing the order. Moreover, it is noted that the complainant has claimed only Rs.2,353/- whereas the opposite parties have paid Rs.2,713/-. It is also found that though the opposite parties have a contention that the complaint is not maintainable. It is observed that they have paid the amount while the case was pending before the Forum. Thus, we find that even though the complaint is not maintainable, the opposite parties have carried out their obligation to the complainant. In the said circumstance, the Forum below ought to have dismissed the complaint. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the Forum below in CC No. 48/2006 of CDRF, Alappuzha is set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Sr. | 
