BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 29th day of May, 2009

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.20/2009

Between

Complainant : M.J. Joy,

Marambil House,

Virinjapara,

Mankulam P.O.

Idukki District.

(By Adv: Joseph Pathalil)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. P.M. Assis,

Puthiyakunnel House,

Virinjapara

Mankulam P.O.

Idukki District: 685 565.

2. K. Anilkumar,

Koyickal House,

Virinjapara

Mankulam P.O.

Idukki District: 685 565.

(Both by Advs: Shiji Joseph &

Lissy M.M)

O R D E R

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

This is a complaint alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party. The grievance of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant is one of the beneficiaries of electric supply scheme of the opposite party. The scheme was introduced for providing Electric power supply and the complainant joined the scheme on 30/11/2007. At the time of joining Rs.2,500/- was paid as security deposit. Initially the monthly subscription was Rs.50/-. The voltage of electricity was very low. On July 2008, the opposite party disconnected the power supply without assigning any reason. The complainant had made a Police complaint against the opposite party. So the connection was restored. In August 2008, the opposite party informed the complainant to pay Rs.300/- as maintenance charge, he paid the amount. Again the opposite party demanded Rs.500/-, but he could not pay the amount. But without any notice the opposite party have stopped supply to the complainant's residence. Alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party, the complaint has been filed for a direction to refund Rs.2,800/- and also to pay compensation.

2. In the written version filed by the opposite party, it is contented that no amount was deposited as security by the complainant. 35 members were joined in this scheme. The complainant also was a member of this scheme. The monthly subscription has been enhanced due to the maintenance of the generator, running of the scheme etc. The supply to the complainant was disconnected because the complainant had acted against the condition of the scheme. The complainant is having electric supply from K.S.E.B. If the complainant is prepared to abide by the rules of the scheme there is no objection for restoring connection. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Ext.P1 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 and DW2 and Exts.R1 to R4 marked on the side of opposite parties.

5. The POINT:- The complainant's definite case is that the opposite party disconnected the electric supply without any reason in July 2008. Whereas the opposite party would content that the complainant had acted against the condition of the scheme. Now the dispute relates about the disconnection of the electric supply. The complainant has given evidence as PW1. Ext.P1 is the Notice issued by the opposite party on 11/08/2008. In the notice, it is stated that the complainant would pay Rs.300/- on or before 15/08/2008. The complainant as PW1 would state that he has paid Rs.300/-, but no receipt was given by the opposite party. The 1st opposite party was examined as DW1. According to him it is the decision in the General Body, to disconnect the complainant's electric supply. DW1 also admitted that the complainant took electric connection from the scheme and Rs.2,500/- was paid as security and he was paying electric charges. But the complainant had acted against the conditions of the scheme. In the condition, all members used CFL bulbs only. The complainant used electric iron box, TV, etc. So the complainant's electric connection was disconnected 3 times. The complainant gave a complaint in the Police station and the electric connection was restored. The complainant also has practically admitted these sequence of events when examined as PW1. The records have not produced in this Forum. In the lightening and thunder, the motor was damaged. The repairing charge was Rs.19,000/-. Ext.R1 is the copy of the minutes book on 19/10/2008. Ext.R2 is the bill dated 21/10/2008. Ext.R3 is the bill dated 21/10/2008. In the General Body meeting, the opposite party and the members were decided to take the repairing charges. On 14/11/2008, the complainant's connection was disconnected because the complainant could not pay Rs.300/- as the maintenance charge. DW2 is the member of the electric supply scheme, who stated that the complainant's electric connection was disconnected because the complainant acted  against the condition of the scheme and he has not paid the repairing charge. It was decided as per the General Body. Complainant's connection was disconnected on 14/11/2008. Ext.R4 is the original minute book, 16 members were attended in the General Body. There is no evidence to show any remittance as alleged by the complainant. Therefore from the available evidence, it can be seen that there was no illegal disconnection on the part of opposite party and as such no deficiency in service can be found against them. So the complainant is not entitled for any relief in this complaint.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost is ordered against the Petitioner.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of May, 2009.

Sd/-

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant:

PW1 - Joy M.J.

On the side of Opposite Parties :

DW1 - Assis P.M.

DW2 - T.M. Josukutty.

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Notice dated 11/08/08.

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Ext.R1 - Copy of minutes of the committee dated 19/10/2008.

Ext.R2 - Bill for Rs.11,910/- dated 21/10/2008.

Ext.R3 - Bill for Rs.6,200/- dated 21/10/2008.

Ext.R4 - Minutes.