KERALASTATE CONSUMENR DISPUES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.737/04 JUDGMENT DATED.02.06.08 PRESENT:- SRI.M.V.VISWANANTHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1. The Secretary, KSEB, Pattom. : APPELLANTS 2. The Asst.Engineer, Electrical Section, Kanjirappally. (By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair) Vs Rasheed, Managing Partner, M/s.Kallunkal Crumb Rubbers, : RESPONDENT Anchillippa, Kanjirappally, Kottayam. (By Adv.Venjaramoodu M.K.Zakeer Husain) JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : MEMBER The above appeal is directed against the order dated.24th March, 2004 of the CDRF, Kottayam in OP.No.199/03. The complaint in the said original petition was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellants as opposite parties requesting for getting the bills (A1 and A2) dated.26.06.03 cancelled. The opposite parties disputed the case of the complainant and contended that those bills were issued for the electrical energy actual consumed by the complainant. But the forum below accepted the case of the complainant to a greater extent and thereby passed the impugned order directing the opposite parties to revise the disputed A1 and A2 bills thereby to exclude the current charges for the period from 8.5.03 to 2.6.03. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is preferred. 2. We heard the counsel for the appellants/opposite parties and the respondent/complainant. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the findings and conclusion of the forum below. 3. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether the complainant has succeeded in establishing his case that he did not consume electricity for the period from 8.5.03 to 2.6.03? 2. Whether the forum below can be justified in passing the impugned order directing the opposite parties to revise the disputed A1 and A2 bills by excluding the current charges for the period from 8.5.03 to 2.6.03? 4. Points 1 and 2:- There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant was having two low tension connection and one high tension connection to his rubber factory and that the high tension connection was disconnected by the opposite parties on 8.5.03 and the same condition continued up to 2.6.03. The fact that the high tension connection was disconnected during the aforesaid period for non payment of current charges is also not in dispute. It is the definite case of the complainant that the factory could not be functioned during the period from 8.5.03 to 2.6.03 due to the disconnection of the high tension connection. But at the same time the opposite party, KSEB has levied the aforesaid charges with respect to the aforesaid two low tension connections. It is also admitted fact that during the period from May 2003 to 4.6.03 the meter installed for the low tension connections was not functioning. So, the opposite parties issued A1 and A2 bills based on the average consumption of charges. The case of the complainant that the low tension connections being used for drawing water to the rubber factory and for pumping out the waste water from the rubber factory cannot be disbelieved. The opposite parties have not adduced any evidence to show the purpose for which the aforesaid two low tension connections were given to the factory. In the absence of any such material it can only be concluded that the two low tension connections were used in connection with the drawing of water into the factory and to pump out the waste water from the rubber factory. The fact that the high tension was disconnected would give a clear indication that the pumping of water was not effected because of the fact that the factory was not functioning during the relevant period. There is no acceptable evidence forthcoming from the side of the opposite parties to substantiate their contention that electricity was consumed through the aforesaid two low tension connection during the period from 8.5.03 to 2.6.03. If that be so, the forum below can be justified in coming to the definite conclusion that there was no consumption of electrical energy by the respondent/complainant during the period from 8.5.03 to 2.6.03. So the forum below is also justified in canceling the disputed A1 and A2 bills dated.26.6.03 and directing the opposite parties to issue revised bills excluding the current charges for the period from 8.5.03 to 2.6.03. It was also made clear that the complainant/consumer cannot be burdened with the liability to pay interest or any other penal charges for the aforesaid period. Thus, the impugned order passed by the forum below is to be upheld. Hence we do so. These points are answered accordingly. In the result the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order dated 24.3.04 passed by the CDRF, Kottayam in OP.No.199/03 is confirmed. The parties to this appeal are directed to suffer their respective costs. M.V.VISWANANTHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER R.AV
......................SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN
......................SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR | | 
