KERALASTATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO:987/03 JUDGMENT DATED.3.12.2007 PRESENT SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER 1. The Secretary, KSEB., Pattom, Trivandrum. 2. The Asst.Ex.Engineer, Electrical Major Section, -- APPELLANTS Idukki. 3. The Asst.Engineer,KSEB., Electrical Majo r Section, Idukki. (By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair) Vs. M.P.Soman, Machariyil House,Prakash.P.O., -- RESPONDENT Vathikudi Panchayath, Idukki District. JUDGMENT SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated:30th day of October 2003 of the CDRF, Idukki in OP:36/03. The complaint in the said op;36/03 was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellants as opposite parties claiming compensation of Rs.50,500/- on the ground of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in providing electric connection to the complainant for agricultural purpose. The lower forum accepted the case of the complainant to a greater extent and thereby deficiency of service was found on the part of the appellants/opposite parties. The opposite parties are directed to pay sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the deficiency of service with a cost of Rs.1000/-. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is filed. 2. Notice of this appeal was served on the respondent/complainant; but he remained absent. We heard the counsel for the appellants/opposite parties. He submitted his arguments on the basis of the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He also relied on the order passed by the KSEB – B.O.No:499/99(Planning Commercial-3443/97) Trivandrum, dated:25..2..1999. The learned counsel for the appellant has also relied on the Government order(M.S)/30/99, agriculture, Trivandrum, dated:4..2..1999 and submitted that the KSEB is authorized to disconnect the supply of electrical energy to agriculturist in the event of failure to remit electricity charges by the agriculture department. Thus, the appellants justified their action in disconnecting the electricity supply connection to the complainant/respondent. 3. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Is there occurred any deficiency of service on the part of the appellants/opposite parties in disconnecting supply of electricity to the complainant/respondent? 2. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the lower forum in OP:36/03? 4. POINTS 1 & 2 We will refer the parties according to their status before the lower forum in OP:36/03. 5. There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant is a beneficiary under the Government order dated:4..2..99. As per the said order the complainant/respondent was included in the list of the agriculturist entitled for supply of electrical energy for agricultural purpose. There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant has been enjoying that benefit under the aforesaid Government order dated:4..2..1999 till 20..12..2002. But unfortunately on 20..12..2002 the electric connection to the field of the complainant was disconnected by the officials of KSEB, on the ground of non remittance of the electricity charges by the concerned agriculture officer. It is the definite case of the appellants/opposite parties that the complainant/respondent was a defaulter in remitting the current charges from 25..8..2001 to 19..12..2002 and a sum of Rs.451/- was due to KSEB as arrears of current charges. The appellants’ case is that they are justified in disconnecting the supply of electricity to the field of the respondent/complainant. 6. The lower forum relied on the Government Order dtd. 4..2..1999 and held that the complainant is entitled to get the supply of electrical energy free of charge for using the same for agriculture purpose. Paragraph 4 of the aforesaid Government Order reads as follows:- “H]1<_ [[E:_W8Uda !MICTB *MG*CW[3 \=CW^ EUF:ATB \AOEUDTHEW^ !3hWk Ha\ppa[ANLa 'Cta =*Mga~ [[E:_W8U \?TM5U[NL [H*aGN}\A1M [H*aGN !3UHa9T<fUO *_GU )T>VHM 8BbTLTdU AXka ATHfU[DTCUdO ?<a;[ge !HUHapNLa "*aHU*_XeVEa "N1U<VB[L\BT !HUHapNLa "N1U<VB[L\BT (OgU\dt8T7a& [[E:_W8U \?TM5U[D ?<a;[ge $] %\:_T,Ha9N )T\CT *MG*<W^ !3Ba\dt [[E:_W8U /TM1a Ha\ppa[ANLUO \C+[g3WfU [ATf^ 8W*BadWm )CW $N\ETBaHW^ 'CtW =*Mga~ HT*aG_[g3WfUB Ha\ppa[ANLU[NL )CW =*MgW^ *X3U *_GU )T>VH[L (OgU\dt8T7a& `=Ha8W8 Ha\ppa[ANLW^ $N\ETBaHW^ D@U/bW =fa :VEHfU<*^ 8W* ATLU *_GU )T>VHM !HU&"N1U<VB[L !Da[DvUO !HU&"N1V<VB[L (OgUdW^ $`=*TC^ =fW:UEHfU<*^ 8W*ATLU EU:_W&\?TM5U[D !HU&"N1V<VBM}!HU&"*aHU*_XeVEa "N/U<VB[L (OgU/bU[DcvUO EU:_W&*7*aGN EU/a\0:UdWk8U<a EU:_W| \?TM5U<a !;U*TCAWtTBUCUdW^&” 7. The aforesaid provision contained in paragraph 4 of the Government order would make it clear that concerned agricultural officer is bound to remit the electricity charges as per the statement and invoice prepared and submitted by the concerned Asst. Engineer or Asst.Ex. Engineer. There is no case that even after submitting the statement and invoice by the concerned Asst. Engineer/Asst. Ex. Engineer, the agriculture officer remitted the electricity charges for and on behalf of the agriculturist. Thus, the aforesaid provision authorizes the KSEB to disconnect the electricity supply to the agriculturist in the event of the failure to remit the current charge. Thus, to certain extent the opposite parties are justified in disconnecting the supply of electricity for the failure to remit the current charges. 8. It is the admitted case that the opposite parties reconnected the supply after the lapse of few days. According to the complainant the supply was reconnected after a lapse of 40 days. But the definite case of the opposite parties is that they disconnected the supply on 20..12..2002 and reconnected the supply on 28..12..2002. Thus, there occurred a delay of 8 days in making the supply of electricity reconnected. There is no ground to disbelieve the case of the opposite parties that the supply was reconnected on 28..12..2002. 9. Then the next question is how and why the opposite parties made reconnection of the supply on 28..12..2002. There is nothing on record to show that the opposite parties effected reconnection on payment of the arrears of current charges. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that there was no fault on the part of the complainant. The fault or omission was on the part of the concerned agriculture officers in remitting the current charges. It was incumbent upon the opposite parties to issue notice to the complainant before taking drastic step of disconnecting the supply of electricity to the agricultural field of the complainant/agriculturist. It is to be born in mind that by virtue of the Government Order dated:4..2..1999 the complainant being the agriculturist is entitled for the benefit under the said order. He was not bound to make payment towards the current charges. But it was the duty of the concerned agricultural officer to take necessary steps to make payment towards the price of the electricity supplied to the agriculturist coming under the purview of the aforesaid Government Order dated:4..2..1999. Thus, there occurred some negligence on the part of the opposite parties in abruptly disconnecting the supply of electricity to the agriculture field of the complainant. The lower forum can be justified to some extent in holding that there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in abruptly disconnecting the supply of electricity to the agricultural field of the complainant/agriculturist who was the beneficiary under the scheme vide G.O.dated:4..2..1999. 10. The next aspect for consideration is whether the complainant/ agriculturist suffered any damage or sustained any sort of loss on account of lack of electricity supply to its agriculture field. The complainant as PW1 has deposed about the damage caused to his agriculture produce. There is no acceptable or supporting materials to come to a definite conclusion that there was such a loss or damages to the agriculture produce. It is the basic principle that for getting compensation on the ground of deficiency of service, there must be some loss or damages sustained due to the deficient service. In the present case there is no concrete evidence to come to such a conclusion. It may be correct to say that the complainant suffered some inconvenience or discomfort due to the disconnection of supply of electricity to its agricultural field. For the aforesaid inconvenience or discomfort the complainant is to compensated. But the compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the lower forum is on the higher side and the cost of Rs.1000/- ordered cannot be treated as reasonable and bare. We are of the view that a sum of Rs.2000/- can be awarded as compensation with cost of Rs.250/-. These points are answered accordingly. In the result the appeal is disposed as indicated above. Thereby the impugned order passed by the lower forum is modified. The appellants/opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation with cost of Rs.250/-. The opposite parties are directed to make the payment within 30 days from the date of this judgment failing which the amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum. SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER S/L | 
