KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM F.A.760/06 JUDGMENT DATED.23.07.08 PRESENT:- JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1.Kerala State Electricity Board, represented by its Secretary, Vaidhyudhi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. 2.Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Quilon, : APPELLANTS Holding additional charge of K.S.E.B., Sakthikulangara. (By Adv.S.Balachandran) Vs Pradeep, Suma Nivas, Kavanadu, Kollam. : RESPONDENT (By Adv.Pappanamcode S.Vijayakumar) JUDGMENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER This appeal has been preferred against the exparte order dated.4.3.05 passed by the CDRF, Kollam in OP.No.300/04. The appellants/opposite parties moved an application for setting aside the exparte order passed against them before the Forum and that application was dismissed. Challenging the sustainability of the order in OP.300/04 the opposite parties preferred this appeal. 2. The facts of the case are that on 5.6.04 the Anti Power Theft Squad of the appellants/opposite parties inspected the premises of the complainant and found that he was using the electrical energy for commercial purpose against the rules and also found that the meter was faulty. The appellants prepared a mahazar at the spot and bill was issued to the complainant as contemplated under section 42(d) of conditions of supply of electrical energy. The lower Forum quashed the bill and directed the appellants to pay compensation of Rs.500/- to the complainant/respondent. 3. According to the appellant the case was posted before the Forum for the appearance of the parties on 28.2.05 and on that day the appellant was made exparte and on a perusal of ‘A’ diary it was found that the case was adjourned for evidence. The appellants/opposite parties filed an application for setting aside the exparte order, but that application was dismissed on the ground that the matter was disposed of under a separate order. 4. We heard the counsel for the appellants/opposite parties. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that he did not get sufficient opportunity to prove his case. On going through the order we find that it is not a considered one. It is obligatory while passing the order to state the case of the party, the grounds urged for granting the prayer and reasons for granting or refusing the relief prayed for, then only it will be possible for the appellate authority to consider the sustainability of the order under challenge. We find that the order of the forum is a concise one which does not contain any reasoning. As no speaking order has been passed by the Forum, we are inclined to set aside the same. 5. In the result the appeal is allowed and the order dated.4.3.05 in OP.No.300/04 in the file of CDRF, Kollam is set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower forum for fresh disposal in accordance with law, after permitting both parties to adduce evidence in support of their contentions if they so desire. The matter is posted before the forum on 05.09.08. The forum is directed to issue notice to both parties. The office is directed to transmit this order to the forum urgently. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER R.AV
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR | | 
