KERALASTATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.824/04
JUDGMENT DATED:24/6/2008
PRESENT:-
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
1. The Assistant Engineer,
Electrical Section, Balusseri.
2. The Executive Engineer, : APPELLANTS
Electrical Division, Balusseri.
3. The Chairman,
K.S.E.Board, Pattom, Trivandrum.
(By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair)
Vs
P.Appu, Pilachery,
P.O. Nanminda, Kozhikode. : RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
The opposite parties in OP No.525/03 of CDRF, Kozhikode are the appellants here in who are aggrieved by the order dated 30/4/2004 wherein and whereby the bill issued by the opposite parties is cancelled with further directions to give reconnection and issue proper bills based on the actual consumption of energy by the complainant.
2. The case of the complainant is that he is given a bill for Rs.2,925/- by the 2nd opposite party for a sum of Rs.2,925/- which he is not liable to pay. Though he has given a request for reconsidering the calculation, the opposite part refused do so and hence the complaint was filed praying for directions to cancel the bill.
3. The 2nd opposite party was called absent and set exparte. Based on the affidavit of the complainant and Ext.A1 to A3, the Forum below passed the impugned order directing the opposite parties to issue a fresh bill based on the actual consumption canceling the bill already issued.
4. We heard the counsel for the appellant. There was no representation for the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant argued before us that the bill for Rs.2,925/- was issued based on the actual consumption recorded in the meter. He has also submitted that after receiving a complaint from the petitioner, on 27.11.2003 the working of the meter was checked and it was found that the meter had no defects and the complainant was liable to pay the bill amount.
5. Though the learned counsel submitted before us that the bill was issued based on actual consumption, the opposite parties failed to file their version before the Forum below. The learned counsel also prayed for remanding the matter to the lower Forum for substantiating their case as they did not get sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence. We find that the notices were issued to the opposite parties and they remained absent through out the proceedings and hence the prayer of the appellants can be allowed only on cost.
6. In the result the appeal is allowed remitting the matter for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence if any in support of their rival contentions. The appellants are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000 towards cost to the complainant.
7. On depositing the amount of Rs.1,000/- before the Forum below it can be withdrawn by the complainant.
The Forum is directed to issue notice to the complainant. On compliance of the deposit of Rs.1000/- by the appellants, the matter will stand posted before the Forum on 30.7.08. The office of this Commission is directed to transmit the copy of the order to the Forum at the earliest.
S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
Pk..
