KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.1071/04
JUDGMENT DATED 14.9.2010
PRESENT
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The Asst Ex.Engineer,
Electrical Major Section,
KSEB, Chittur.
2. The Dy.Chief Engineer -- APPELLANTS
Electrical Circle,
Vyduthi Bhavan, Palakkad.
3. The Secretary,
KSEB, Vyduthi Bhvan,
Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair)
Vs.
Pazhanimala, S/0 Krishnan,
Thazhe Ezhuthani, -- RESPONDENT
Vandithavalam, Chittur,
Palakkad.
(By Adv.K.K.Rajeev & Ors.
JUDGMENT
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER
Appellants were the opposite parties and respondent was the complainant in OP.NO.181/2003 on the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The above complaint was filed to get exemption under the Government Order No. 157/91 (TCI/1307/91) dated 24th April 1991. The opposite parties entered appearance and contended that the complainant is not entitled to get the benefit under the Government order of the year 1991. They contended that the connection given to the complainant was under service connection minimum guarantee agreement scheme and so the complainant is not entitled to benefit under the Government order No.157/1991.
2. Before the Forum below, Exts.A1 to A5 and B1 to B2 documents were marked on the side of the parties to the complaint in OP.181/03. Based on the documentary evidence available on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated 15th September 2004 allowing the complaint and directing the opposite parties to refund the excess amount collected from the complainant by way of minimum guarantee amount along with interest and cost of Rs.500/-. Hence, the present appeal.
3. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for respondent/complainant. This Commission is pleased to hear the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties. He submitted his arguments based on Clause 9 of the Government Order No.157/91 (TCI/1307/91) dated 24th April 1991 and argued for the position that the respondent/complainant was not entitled to get any benefit and prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below.
4. There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant executed a service line minimum guarantee agreement with KSE Board. Ext. B1 is the aforesaid minimum guarantee agreement executed by the complainant in favour of KSEB. B1 agreement would show that the said agreement was service line connection minimum guarantee agreement. If that be so, the respondent/complainant is not entitled to get the benefit under the Government Order dated 24th April ‘91. The clause 9 of the aforesaid order (B2) is as follows
“In respect of works based on rental or service connection minimum guarantee scheme, the rules in force will apply.”
5. The aforesaid clause 9 of the Government order would make it clear that the consumers who have availed the service connection under the minimum guarantee scheme are not entitled to get the benefit under the aforesaid Government Order. Ext.B1 agreement executed by the complainant in favour of KSEB would make it clear that the service connection was given to the complainant under service line minimum guarantee scheme. The aforesaid agreement itself is for the service line minimum guarantee agreement. So, the Forum below cannot be justified in granting the benefit to the respondent/complainant under the aforesaid Government Order dated 24th April ‘91. So, the impugned order passed by the Forum below is liable to be quashed.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Forum below is set aside. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
s/L
