KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 263/09 JUDGMENT DATED 15.1.2010 PRESENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER The Asst.Engineer, KSEB.Badiadka Section, Badiadka, Kasargod 2. The Asst.Executive Engineer, -- APPELLANTS KSEB, Cherkala, Kasargod. (By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair) Vs. Mr.Radhakrishna.J.S. S/0 late Janardhana Nayak, -- RESPONDENT Sheni Thottade Mane House, Maira P.O, Kasargod.
JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellants were the opposite parties and the respondent was the complainant in CC184/08. The said complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in giving proper electricity supply to the Agriculture connection of the complainant. It was alleged that due to lack of sufficient voltage the electric motors installed at the premises of the complainant are not functioning and he has been remitting electricity charges based on the electricity bills. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version admitting the fact that there was slow voltage problem in that area. It is further submitted by the opposite parties that for improvement of voltage steps are being taken by KSEB. Thus, the opposite parties requested for dismissal of the complaint. 2. Before the Forum below, both parties adduced documentary evidence based on the admission made by the opposite parties and also on the strength of the documentary evidence adduced, the forum below passed the impugned order directing the opposite parties to supply sufficient voltage to the complainant. 3 months time was also given to carry out the necessary voltage improvement works. It was further directed that till the period of completion of voltage improvement works 50% reduction shall be given in the electricity bills issued to the complainant. The forum below has also further directed the opposite parties to give the aforesaid 50% reduction in electricity bills to all the consumers coming under the jurisdiction of the opposite parties who are suffering voltage problem. The complainant has been awarded cost of Rs.1000/-. It is against the said order dated 30th January 2009 passed by CDRF, Kasaragod in CC.184/08, the present appeal is filed. 3. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for the respondent/complainant. The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He canvassed for the position that there was no willful omission or lapses on the part of the opposite parties and that the opposite parties have taken necessary steps to improve the voltage in the area. The appellants/opposite parties requested to modify the impugned order regarding the direction to give 50% reduction in electricity bills issued to the consumers who are suffering due to in- sufficient voltage in the supply of electricity. 4. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants/opposite parties as far as the respondent/complainant is concerned in providing sufficient voltage for the electricity supplied to the complainant? 2. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the forum below? 5. POINTS 1 & 2:- The respondent/complainant obtained the electricity connection for agriculture purpose. It is the definite case of the complainant that there was voltage problem and because of low voltage in the electricity supply line, he is not in a position to run the motors pumps for agriculture purpose. The opposite parties entered appearance and fled written version. It is admitted that there was low voltage problem and they have taken necessary steps to improve the voltage. So, the forum below has rightly relied on the provisions of Rule 54 and 58 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956; and rightly found the opposite parties deficient in rendering service to the complainant. It is also to be noted that there was an agreement entered into between the complainant consumer and the opposite party/KSEB. Thereby, the opposite party/KSEB agreed to have uninterrupted supply of electricity with sufficient voltage. But, in the present case on hand, the complainant is not in a position to run his motor pumps for Irrigation purpose. Because of the low voltage problem, the complainant has been suffering. He has also suffered financial loss. It is also to be noted that the respondent/complainant being the consumer of the electricity supply connection has been remitting electricity charges based on the electricity bills issued. There can be no doubt that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in providing sufficient voltage for the electricity supply connection. The forum below is perfectly justified in directing the opposite parties to improve the voltage. In order to compensate the complainant, the forum below has also rightly directed the opposite parties to give necessary concession by way of 50% reduction in the electricity bills till the voltage improvement works are carried out. 6. The Forum below is also directed the opposite parties to give similar reduction by 50% in electricity bills to all the consumers of the Electricity Board. But there is no such case for the complainant or for the other consumers who are coming under the KSEB. The forum below cannot be justified in issuing such a blanket order directing the opposite parties to provide 50% reduction in bills to all the consumers who are facing voltage problem. So, the aforesaid concession given to the other consumers under the KSEB can be treated as an unwarranted one and so the same is quashed. In all other respects, the impugned order passed by the forum below is confirmed. These points are answered accordingly. In the result, the appeal is allowed partly. The impugned order dated 30.1.09 passed by CDRF, Kasaragod in CC.184/08 is modified, and thereby the direction issued to the opposite parties to provide 50% reduction in electricity bills to all the consumers coming under the jurisdiction of KSEB is set aside. But, in all other respects, the impugned order passed by the forum below is confirmed. The order regarding cost is also upheld. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER | 
