Kerala

StateCommission

RP/14/69

CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - Complainant(s)

Versus

MARIAMMA - Opp.Party(s)

B SAKTHIDARAN NAIR

30 Jun 2015

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION NO.69/2014

ORDER DATED : 30.06.2015

 

(Revision Petition filed aginst the order in CC.No.162/2014 on the file of CDRF, Idukki order dated :24.09.2014)

PRESENT

 

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR              : JUDICIALMEMBER

SMT.A.RADHA                                         : MEMBER

SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS                : MEMBER

 

REVISION PETITIONER

 

1. The Chief Engineer,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

Vydhyudhi Bhavan,

Pattom,

Thiruvananthapuram

 

2. The Executive Engineer,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

Research & Dam Safety,

Division No.11,

Idukki Colony.P.O

Vazhathoppu, Idukki District

 

(By Adv.Sri.B.Sakthidharan Nair)

 

Vs

 

REVISION COUNTER PETITIONER

 

Mariyamma,

Muthukunnel House,

KSEB Quarters NO.E-5 B

Idukki Colony.P.O

Vazhathoppu,

Idukki District – 685 602

 

 

ORDER

 

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR     : JUDICIAL MEMBER

          Revision petitioners are the opposite parties in CC.No.162/2014 in the CDRF, Idukki. The revision counter petitioner was the complainant. She was occupying one of the quarters of the Kerala State Electricity Board at Vazhathoppu from 18.02.2013. Even as per the allegations in the complaint the period of lease expired on 05.02.2014. It is alleged that she has filed application for renewing the lease. The specific allegation is that she is paying rent to the revision petitioners promptly. But the further allegation is that demand for Rs.31,092/- was made by the revision petitioners as rent arrears and penal interest. The grievance alleged is that as per the demand notice if the amount is not paid within 15 days, she would be evicted from the premises.

          2.      In the background of the above admitted allegations the revision petitioners filed IA.No.144/2014 challenging the maintainability of such a complaint before the consumer forum. According to them, no consumer dispute is involved and the dispute is purely of civil nature and rent control court is the only court having jurisdiction. As per the impugned order the consumer forum dismissed the application challenging the maintainability of the consumer complainant. Hence this revision.

          3.      The order of the consumer forum is seen purely based on personal view and surmises. According to the consumer forum the opposite parties are not entitled to issue such a huge bill. Such observations are made even without evidence and in the light of the admitted lease arrangement. There is no allegation what so ever constituting deficiency in service on the part of the revision petitioners. Actually, the complainant has occupied the quarters on the basis of mutual agreement and governing terms are set by mutual agreement and regulations of the Kerala State Electricity Board. After the expiry of the period of lease the complainant has no right to continue the occupation much less without paying rent. Absolutely there is no consumer dispute involved on the admitted facts. So the consumer forum committed irregularity by refusing to entertain the application questioning the maintainability of the complaint. Hence the revision petition is liable to be allowed.

          In the result, the revision petition is allowed. In reversal of the order of CDRF, Idduki in IA.No.144/2014 dated 24.009.2014, the said application is allowed and consequently CC.No.161/2014 shall stand dismissed.

K.CHANDRADAS NADAR            : JUDICIALMEMBER

 

A.RADHA                               : MEMBER

 

SANTHAMMA THOMAS      : MEMBER

 

Be/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

 CONSUMER DISPUTES

 REDRESSAL COMMISSION

 SISUVIHARLANE

 VAZHUTHACADU

 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REV PETITION NO.69/2014

ORDER DATED : 30.06.2015

 

                                         Be/