KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL 625/09
JUDGMENT DATED: 22.9.2010
PRESENT
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
1. KSEB, represented by its : APPELLANTS
Special Officer(Revenue),
Vydhyuthi Bhavan,
Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Deputy Chief Engineer,
KSEB, Electrical Circle,
Manjeri(P.O).
(By Adv.S.Balachandran)
Vs.
O.M.Zacharia, : RESPONDENT
Oothickmannil House,
Munda.P.O.,
Edakkara, Malappuram District.
JUDGMENT
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
The above appeal is preferred against the order dated 12.2.2009 of CDRF, Malappuram in OP 32/03, whereby the Forum below directed the opposite parties to refund Rs.42500/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 18.12.92 till payment with costs of Rs.2000/- to the complainant.
2. The case of the complainant is that he intended to start a coconut oil refinery and production of coconut oil based products and deposited a sum of Rs.1,40,640/- to the opposite parties as security deposit for a HT connection. The opposite parties did not provide electric connection within 6 months as assured and not given connection for 8 years. At last he abandoned the project due to bad health. Several requests were made by the complainant for the refund of the amount deposited. On 20.6.02 the opposite parties refunded Rs.98140/- without any interest and informed the complainant that the balance of Rs.42,500/- is non refundable since that was collected as service charges. Hence alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite parties, he filed complaint before the forum.
3. The opposite parties filed version and contended that as per the agreement they are bound to give service connection only when the consumer completes the requirements as specified in the agreement and that the complainant failed to complete the installation and also did not furnish completion report. That lapse on the part of the complainant was the reason for not providing connection to him.
4. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants. There was no representation for the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellants argued before us that the Forum has gone wrong in directing the opposite parties to return the service connection charges with interest and costs. The case of the appellants is that as per the agreement the caution deposit and service connection charges were collected separately and it was due to the non furnishing of the completion certificate for getting service connection that the connection was not given, for which the opposite parties could not be found fault with. It is also submitted by him that as per Ext.B3 the Board order the service connection charge is not refundable and this was informed to the complainant as per Ext.A9. Thus he canvassed for the position that there was no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the appellants/opposite parties and prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and also on perusing the records we find that as per Ext.B1, the agreement the complainant had remitted Rs.98,140/- towards deposit and Rs.42500/- towards service connection charge. The complainant/respondent would argue that the connection as requested by the complainant was delayed by the opposite parties. It is found that he had demanded the refund of the amount collected from him by the opposite parties. It is also noted that the opposite parties have refunded the amount collected towards the deposit and it was only the service connection charges that was not refunded. The complainant is aggrieved by the non refund of the service connection charges and interest towards the deposit amount and according to him he is entitled to interest for the said amounts. The Forum has passed the order only for refunding the service connection charges of Rs.42500/- with interest and costs and has disallowed the claim for interest on the deposited amount. As there is no appeal by the complainant in this regard that part of the order approving the refund of Rs.98140/- without interest has become final.
6. The Forum has directed for the refund of service connection charges of Rs,42500/- with interest at 9% per annum from 18.12.92 till payment with costs of Rs.2000/-. On a perusal of the Ext.B3, the Board order 2004/97(Plg.com 3482/97 dated 10.9.97), it is stated that service connection charge is not refundable and as per Ext.A9 letter dated 11.6.02 the Deputy chief Engineer Electrical Circle, Manjeri informed the complainant that as per existing Rules the Service connection charge is not refundable.
7. But it is to be found that the agreement which is marked as Ext. B1 is silent about the forfeiture of service connection charges if the service connection is not provided to the complainant. As per Ext. A5 it is noted that the Deputy Chief Engineer has informed the complainant that the service connection charges would be refunded on getting directions from the SOR, Thiruvananthapuram. The learned counsel for the appellant would argue that as per Ext. B3, the service connection charges are not refundable. On a perusal of Ext. B3 it is found that the said Board Order has come into effect only from 10.09.1997. But it is observed that the complainant had remitted the amount in December 1992 and at the time of executing the agreement there was no such Board order enabling the appellant/KSEB for forfeiture of the service connection charges. In the absence of a clause for non-refund of service connection charges, we are of the view that the Forum has rightly considered the issues and passed the order directing the opposite parties to refund Rs. 42,500/- with 9% interest from 18.12.1992 till payment with costs. We find no cogent grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Forum below.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned order passed by the Forum below is confirmed. As far as the present appeal is concerned, there shall be no order as to costs.
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
ps
