KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 429/2016

JUDGMENT DATED: 25.01.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 38/2016 of CDRF, Malappuram)

PRESENT:

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH                                                       : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.RANJIT. R                                                                   : MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

Assistant Engineer, KSEB Edappal Section, Edappal.

                                       (By Adv. B. Sakthidharan Nair)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Rugmini Amma, W/o Kesavan Nambiar, Adhikari Veetil, Changaramkulam, Nannammukku P.O., Pin-679 575.

JUDGMENT

SRI.RANJIT. R: MEMBER

The opposite party in C.C. No. 38/2016 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram (in short the District Forum) has filed this appeal against the order dated 31.03.2016.  The District Forum by its order directed the opposite party to refund the security deposit amount to the complainant along with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs of Rs. 7,500/- within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 

2.  The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant was a consumer of the opposite party vide consumer No. 32402.  According to her the opposite party had disconnected the electricity connection without any intimation.  When she reached at the office of the opposite party for payment of the electricity bill, the opposite party informed her that the bill amount will be adjusted from the deposit.  Since the complainant was not physically fit she had to reside with her son and the opposite party disconnected the connection though they were not using the electricity.  When the complainant’s son contacted the Assistant Engineer, the complainant was directed to pay the CD and OYEC.  The complainant was not in a position to raise the fund for the same.  Hence she filed the complaint.

3.  The opposite party filed version raising the following contentions.  The service connection bearing Consumer No. 32402 was registered in the name of Rugmini Amma for construction purpose tariff on 31.12.2012 and changed to domestic tariff on 27.05.2014.  The complainant remitted the electricity charges up to 20.06.2014.  The regular current charges from 08/2014 to 02/2015 was adjusted from the security amount to the tune of Rs. 1,493/-.  But thereafter the complainant did not remit the regular current charges due for 04/2015 and 06/2015.  A sum of Rs. 180/- due to the complainant by way of security deposit interest was adjusted on 02.06.2015 towards the electricity charges for the month of 06/2015.  Due to the non-remittance of the electricity charges due on 08/2015 the electricity connection was disconnected on 08.09.2015 as per Regulation 138 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2014.  Thereafter the service connection was dismantled on 30.11.2015 after giving notice as per regulation 139 of the Supply Code 2014 and arrears of the current charges was adjusted in the security deposit.  Since the service connection was dismantled and the agreement was terminated the said connection could not be restored.  Hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.  The District Forum vide its order in I.A 131/2016 directed the opposite party to restore the electric connection to the house of the complainant by accepting the BPL certificate.  Both parties were directed to report before the District Forum about the reconnection on 01.03.2016.  Accordingly both parties reported that opposite party has complied with the order in I.A. and the connection was restored.  However, the complainant stated that the security deposit was not refunded to her.  The District Forum then directed the opposite party to refund the security amount without insisting for production of the original receipt from the complainant, as the receipt showing the deposit is available with the office of the KSEB itself.  Though the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund the security deposit without insisting for the original receipt, the opposite party did not comply with the order.  Therefore, the District Forum passed the impugned order under challenge.  Aggrieved by this order the opposite party has come up in appeal.

5.  The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the District Forum failed to consider that the opposite party had complied with the interim order dated 27.02.2016 in I.A. No. 131/2016 in C.C. No. 38/2016 directing the opposite party to restore connection to the house of the complainant.  But there was no direction in the order to refund the security deposit.  The learned counsel further contended that the District Forum failed to consider than the opposite party can refund the security deposit only on production of original receipt or in the alternative on execution of a bond on stamp paper for which the complainant was not willing.  The District Forum erred in directing the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs of Rs. 7,500/- to the complainant for not refunding a sum of Rs. 694/-.  Thus he prayed for allowing the appeal.

6.  We have considered the arguments put forward by the learned counsel and also the written submission made by the complainant.  We have also perused the records.  Perusing the record of the District Forum it can be seen that as per I.A. No. 131/2016 the District Forum has directed the opposite party to restore the electric connection to the house of the complainant.  However, as submitted by the learned counsel, there was no direction in this order to the opposite party to refund the security deposit.  But it is pertinent to note that on the very next posting date that is on 01.03.2016, on the request of the complainant the opposite party’s representative has agreed that they are willing to refund the security deposit.  Since the complainant was not having the original receipt with her and as the receipt showing deposit is available with the office of the opposite party the District Forum in open court directed the opposite party to refund the security amount without insisting for production of original receipt from the complainant.  The direction made in open court, which forms part of the proceedings.  The officer who was present before the District Forum accepted this direction and undertook to give refund of the security amount without insisting for the original receipt. The opposite party in gross violation of the above direction and the undertaking which they made before the District Forum, insisted the complainant for production of original receipt or in the alternative to execute the bond on stamp paper.  The act of the opposite party in insisting for original receipt is nothing but disrespect to the clear direction of the District Forum.  They should have graciously accepted the direction of the District Forum without insisting for the original receipt or executing bond.  The act of the opposite party in doing so is clear violation of their own undertaking before the District Forum. It was in these circumstances the District Forum has rightly directed the opposite party to refund the security deposit amount along with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs of Rs. 7,500/-. 

7.  The appellant had filed this appeal suppressing the above fact that there was a direction from the District Forum to refund the security deposit without insisting for the original receipt.  The direction of the District Forum made in open court is also part of the record in the proceedings on that day.  They have filed this appeal without any bonafides, by suppressing the above facts.  The appellant should not have taken such a stand.  In this context, it is relevant to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Gurgaon Gramin Bank Vs Khasani & Anr., IV (2012) CPJ 5 (SC)”, dealing with a case in which where a paltry amount is involved, has observed the following: “Number of litigations in our country is on the rise, for small and trivial matters, people and sometimes Central and State Governments and their instrumentalities Banks, nationalized or private, come to courts may be due to ego clash or to save the officers’ skin”. Court further observed that “Unless, serious questions of law of general importance arise for consideration or a question which affects large number of persons or the stakes are very high, Court’s jurisdiction cannot be invoked for resolution of small and trivial matters.”  KSEB, a public sector organization, has unnecessarily spent money, time and energy for prosecuting this appeal for such a small amount. Needless to add that the amount spent for this litigation must be much higher than the amount involved.  We do not find any merit in the contention put forward by the appellant/opposite party.  The order of the District Forum is confirmed. 

In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs Rs. 5,000/-. 

The respondent/complainant can realize the amount of Rs. 5,000/- awarded as costs of the proceedings from the statutory amount of Rs. 8,750/- deposited by the appellant while filing the appeal, on filing proper application.  The amounts due to the complainant/respondent as per the order of the District Forum, is to be paid by the appellant/opposite party within two weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment failing which the amounts will carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of receipt of this judgment till realization.                                    

                                                      Sd/-

                 T.S.P. MOOSATH  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                     Sd/-

RANJIT. R                : MEMBER   

                                                   Sd/-

                                                                        RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb