KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.485/05
JUDGMENT DATED 7.4.2011
PRESENT
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT
SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER
1. The Asst.Executive Engineer,
Electrical Major Section,
Agali.
2. The Secretary, -- APPELLANTS
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair)
Vs.
1. P.Kanthaswamy Gounder,
S/0 Rangaswamy Gounder,
Kalavai Thottam, Vattalaky,
Mathukkadu, Agali,
Palakkad.
2. The Agricultural Officer, -- RESPONDENTS
Krishi Bhavan, Sholayur.
3. The Joint Director of Agriculture,
Civil Station, Plakkad.
(By Adv. C.Gopalakrishnan Nair)
JUDGMENT
SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR,MEMBER
It is aggrieved by the directions contained in the order dated 10.2.05 of CDRF, Palakkad in OP.166/03 that the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties who are under directions to execute a fresh minimum guarantee agreement with the complainant and 7 others after revising the monthly payments in accordance with the electricity tariff to be levied during the year 2000.
2. The complainant’s case before the Forum is that he has taken an agricultural connection from the opposite parties by executing a minimum guarantee agreement and that the agreement was executed in the year 1993. According to the complainant, he is entitled for the benefit of the exemption from payment of current charges under Agricultural Department and that instead of giving exemption, notices were given for payment at the rate of Rs.567/- per month. It is also his case that the bill for Rs.28599/- issued by the 1st opposite party for the period from 1/2001 to 7/2003 is not liable to be paid by him. According to him an amount of Rs.20,000/- has been allowed by the Agricultural Department per each agricultural consumers and thus the total beneficiaries including him are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,60,000/-. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed praying for directions to revise the tariff after deducting the benefit extended by the Agricultural Department.
3. The opposite parties in their version contended that the agricultural connection was given to the complainant and 7 others after executing a minimum guarantee agreement for a period of 7 years at the rate of Rs.567/- per month with effect from the date of connection. It is also submitted by the opposite parties that the complainant defaulted payments and that on payment of the first installment of the arrears, the connection was restored. It is also their case that the exemption from payment of the electricity charges to the farmers was granted as per the guidelines in the B.O.No.499/99 dated 25.2.99. Thus, the opposite parties submitted that there was no deficiency in service on their part and they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The evidence consisted of the documents produced by the opposite parties which were marked as Exts.B1 to B5.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants who are the first and second opposite parties before the Forum argued that the order of the Forum below is per-se unsustainable, on the ground that the documents produced by them were not properly appreciated. It is his very case that the minimum guarantors had to pay the amount of Rs.567/- per month for a period of 7 years and the benefit extended by the order dated 25.2.99 had no retrospective effect and in such a situation the guarantors including the complainant could not be given the benefit. He has also submitted that the complainant was liable to pay the charges fixed as per the minimum guarantee executed. On a perusal of Ext.B1, we find that the agreement is executed in the year1993 and the complainant and 7 others are the guarantors in the said agreement. It is also noted that an amount of Rs.2,17,690/- is shown in Ext. B1 agreement and that the complainant and other beneficiaries were directed to pay monthly charges and the rate of Rs. 567/- per month for a period of 7 years. It is further found that though the complainant had argued for the position that he is entitled for the benefit under the agricultural scheme no documents are seen produced by him to support his claims. It is noted that the order extending the benefit came into force only on 22.5.99 and the complainant has not produced any material to show it has retrospective effect. In the said circumstances, we find force in the arguments learned counsel for the appellants that the complainants are not entitled for the benefits ordered by the KSEB and the order of the Forum is liable to be set aside. Hence we do so accordingly.
6. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 10.2.05 of CDRF, Palakkad in OP.166/03 is set aside. In the nature and circumstances of the present appeal, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
The office will return the LCR along with the copy of this order to the Forum urgently.
S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER
JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT
