KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. APPEAL No. 75/2006 JUDGMENT DATED:27.02.2010 PRESENT: SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER APPELLANTS 1. The Secretary, KSE Board, Vaidhyuthi Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The Assistant Engineer, KSE Board, Electrical Major Section, Edathua, Alappuzha. (Rep. by Adv. Sri. B. Sakthidharan Nair) Vs RESPONDENT Sri. P.K. Varghese, Pazhangeril, Kunthirickal P.O., Thalavadi, Alappuzha. (Rep. by Adv. Sri. Murukkumpuzha R. Vijayakumaran Nair & others) JUDGMENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER The order dated 09.09.2005 in O.P.No. A 60/2003 of CDRF, Alappuzha is being challenged in this appeal by the opposite parties. By the impugned order the opposite parties are under directions to refund the excess amount collected from the complainant from 07/2002 to 05/2003 with interest. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum submitting that he was regularly paying the electricity charges due to the opposite parties and that the demand of additional charges made by the opposite parties is not liable to be paid by him. It is alleged by him that as the 2nd opposite party disconnected his electric connection and as the amount was paid by him under protest the supply was restored. However it is his case that the opposite parties are liable to pay back the amount illegally collected from him with compensation of 15,000/- along with cost of the proceedings before the Forum. 3. The opposite party filed joint version and submitted that the bill issued for the period from 07.02.2002 is towards the penal charges for the reason that the static capacitor connected to the electric installation of the complainant was found to be defective and in spite of the notice the complainant did not rectify the same and hence 20% extra charges were levied on the complainant. It was also submitted that there was no dismantling of the service connection but only disconnection which was consequent to the non payment of current charges for the month of December 2002 and that the service was reconnected since the complainant cleared the dues. Submitting that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A5. On the side of the opposite parties the RW1 and RW2 were examined, Exts.B1 to B4 were marked. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued before us that the order of the Forum below is unsustainable on the mere ground that the Forum did not appreciate the evidence tendered by the RW1 and 2 and the records produced by the opposite parties. He has submitted before us the Forum has passed the impugned order heavily relying on the deposition of the complainant which is perse illegal and unsustainable. He further submitted that there was a site mahazar prepared and the scribe of the mahazar was examined before the court. It is also submitted by him that proper notice was issued to the complainant to rectify the defect noted and the Forum has failed in appreciating the said notice produced and marked as Ext.B2. The learned counsel argued before us that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the complaint is to be dismissed. 6. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusing the records we find that the opposite parties had inspected the premises on 03.07.2002 and a mahazar has been prepared which is marked as Ext.B3. It is also noted that he has been examined as RW2. Nothing is forthcoming in the examination of the said witness that there was no inspection on the said date or that the capacitor was perfectly working. It is also noted that a notice has been issued 08.07.2002 to the complainant and the same is marked as B2 without any objection from the side of the complainant. In the said notice it is seen that the complainant was informed of the defects of the capacitor and has been requested to replace the defective capacitor with a perfectly functioning and ISI marked capacitor within 7 days failing which he would be charged 20% extra on the bills issued to him till the capacitor is replaced. In the said circumstances we are inclined to accept the case of the opposite parties that the bills issued by them were according to the rules and regulations of the KSE Board and in such situation we are not inclined to find any fault in the service of the opposite parties in issuing the bills with penal charges for non installation of correct capacitors. We are also not inclined to accept the finding of the Forum below that no proper demand notice was issued by the opposite parties for the excess charges and there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In such a situation the order of the Forum is in directing the opposite parties to refund the excess charges collected from the complainant for the period from 7/2002 to 5/2003 with interest is liable to be set aside. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the Forum below in O.P. A 60/03 of CDRF, Alappuzha is set aside. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR: MEMBER kb | 
