The case of the complainant in brief is as follows :  Complainant applied for electricity connection for agricultural purpose in the year 1998.  Connection received on April, 2004.  The bill amount `804 for two months had been remitted by the complainant till June, 2006.  Then he had applied for free connection in Krishi Bhavan.  After inspection his name was included in the eligibility list of free supply of electricity.  Krishi Bhavan, Kanichar, Kolayad sent his name to Assistant Engineer, Kuthuparamba informing that opposite party will remit the charges for complainant’s connection 8893NDL. Then Krishbhavan remitted the bill for about one year.  But without any information stopped paying the bill thereafter and an amount of `29,750 accumulated as due.  As a result of this arrears supply of electricity disconnected by Electricity Board and removed the meter.  Now they are taking revenue recovery action against complainant.  Complainant came to know about this huge arrears only at this stage.  Though complainant approached the Agricultural Officer several times, he did not give any definite answer.

The matter has been brought before Chief Minister of Kerala by a petition to the scheme of his mass contact program.  On enquiry Krishibhavan submitted that the name of the complainant was not in the register of free electricity scheme of Kanichar Krishi Bhavan.  Complainant collected copy of concerned document sent by Krishi Bhavan on 02.08.2006 to Electricity Board which shows his name had been included in the scheme.  On the basis of fresh application principle Agricultural Officer made enquiry but no action has been taken so far.   Hence this application for an order for necessary direction to the Krishi Bhavan to remit the due amount and to put an end to RR proceedings.

          Pursuant to the notice opposite party entered appearance and filed version jointly denying the main allegations of the complainant. The allegations of complainant that he had applied for supply of electricity for agricultural purpose under the power tariff exemption and the name of the complainant was included in the scheme and also payment of bill till 28.02.2007 are true.  `29,750 accumulated as arrears due to stopping payment electricity bill without any intimation is not true.  The bill which was paid by the opposite parties includes the energy charges, surcharge and minimum guarantee amount.  The opposite parties are constrained to pay that bill amount since KSEB issued demand notice for the total amount and not in split form.  It fact the opposite parties are supposed to make payment of energy charges only.  Thereafter as directed by the Accountant General the opposite parties were constrained to stop making payment of the total bill which includes energy charges, surcharge and minimum guarantee amount. Moreover, the opposite parties insisted KSEB authorities to issue demand notice in split form.  But the same was not issued.  The opposite parties were not in a position to make payment of every charges which resulted in accumulation.  The matter was informed to all beneficiaries of the scheme including the complainant.  The other farmers paid the entire dues before the KSEB.  The opposite parties are only liable to pay the energy charges.  Minimum guarantee charges and surcharge is to be paid by the beneficiaries.  Moreover, if the complainant is ready to clear the present dues his name can be included in the present scheme on submitting a fresh application.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  Hence to dismiss the complaint. 

          On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.         

1.           Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?

2.           Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief prayed in the complaint?

3.           Relief and cost.

The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A3.  Opposite parties adduced no evidence.

Issues No.1 to 3 :

          Admittedly the name of the complainant was included in the scheme for supply of electricity for Agricultural purpose under the power tariff exemption.  Till 28.02.2007 the bill was paid by opposite parties for the connection No.8893 NDL in the name of the complainant.

          The case of the complainant is that opposite party/Krishi Bhavan stopped the payment of electricity bill without giving any intimation after making the payment for about one year.  Consequent of non payment of bill by the opposite party/ Krishi Bhavan an amount of `29,750 has became accumulated as due.  Opposite party on the other hand contended that they are liable to pay only that part of the energy charges of the bill and other parts of the bill namely surcharge and minimum guarantee amount have to be paid by the complainant.

          It is a fact that the electricity charges for the connection till 28.02.2007 that is for about one year had been paid by opposite parties.  Opposite party contended that they were constrained to stop making payment as directed by the Accountant General.  Opposite party also contended that they had intimated this to complainant and other consumers.  But it is pertinent to note that opposite party did produce a single piece of paper inorder to prove the same.  The opposite parties could have produce at least the copy of direction given by the Accountant General.  There is no hurdle to produce a copy of the intimation claimed to be sent to the complainant.  Both these papers are very important as far as this case is concerned.  Opposite party did not adduce any evidence neither oral nor documentary.  Pleading is not evidence.  PW1 was elaborately cross examined.  But opposite parties did not even filed affidavit.  PW1 repeated in cross examination that opposite party is liable to pay the electricity charges.  PW1 also deposed in cross examination that no intimation had been sent to complainant with respect to stoppage of payment.  PW1 also deposed that the direction of Accountant General is not without his knowledge.  PW1 further deposed in cross examination that it is not within his knowledge that other consumers had been informed of stoppage of payment and they have remitted this bill to KSEB.

          It is pertinent to note that opposite parties in their version stated that KSEB did not issue split up bill to them.  If that be so, how could other consumers pay their bill to KSEB is not explained.  Opposite party did not intended to convince the Forum that their contentions were genuine and true.  By mere production of documents these aspects, namely direction of Accountant General, intimation sent to consumers regarding, stoppage of payment of electricity bill by Krishi Bhavan, remittance of electricity bill by other consumers etc, could have been easily proved.  First two documents are readily kept in their own office and regarding payment of bill by other consumers relevant documents would be available in the office of KSEB.  Even how could they made arrangements the payment of split up bill has not been explained.  The officer concerned could have enter in witness box and depose what was actually happened in dealing with this matter.  The laziness on the part of opposite parties even in producing the documents in their own custody can only be considered as the reflection of truthlessness of their contentions. 

          If it was proved that the matter of stoppage of payment of bill had been informed in time, the entire case would have been different.  It is very pathetic to see that one fine morning the innocent consumer happened to face a liability of huge amount at a stretch not out of his own fault but out of failure dealings of a responsible authority.  Such a situation has to be looked into one way or the other without which, it is impossible to guarantee natural justice.  This is certainly a negligence on the part of opposite parties which could have been avoided merely by an intimation.  The very birth of Krishi Bhavan has been intended to safe guard the interest of agriculturist in ground level but in practice if they fail to find time even to give an information to save him from heavy economic burden that is a grave negligence amount to high degree of deficiency in service.  Hence we are of opinion that the opposite parties are liable to pay this arrears of bill `29,750 and to make free the complainant from all other burdens in respect of arrears.  Considering the special nature of this case we are avoiding the compensation and cost.  Thus Issues No.1 to 3 are answered partly in favour of the complainant.

          In the result, complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties to pay the concerned electricity bill of complainant’s connection 8893NDL within one month from the date of receipt of this order and to free him from other legal action, failing which opposite parties are liable to pay `29,750 (Rupees Twenty nine thousand seven hundred and fifty only) as bill amount together its interest and `25,000 (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as compensation with `500 (Rupees Five hundred only)  as cost of this litigation to complainant.  Complainant is at liberty to execute the order after the expiry of 30 days as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.

Dated this the 27^th day of September, 2012.

                            Sd/-                    Sd/-                  Sd/-

President             Member            Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1. Copy of notice dated 02.08.2006.

A2. Letter send by 1^st OP to complainant dated 19.12.2011.

A3. Post card letter dated 27.09.2007 from 2^nd OP to complainant.

Exhibits for the opposite parties

Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.  Surish P.J.

Witness examined for opposite party

Nil

                                                                        /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT