KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.307/2010 JUDGMENT DATED 7.7.10 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER 1. The Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, KSEB Meenangadi. 2. The Secretary/Chairman, -- APPELLANTS Kerala StateElectriity Board, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair) Vs. Mr.Sasi, S/0 Narayanan, Nelliyanikkunnel, Choothupara, Society Kavala, Koleri, -- RESPONDENT Wayanad. JUDGMENT SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR MEMBER It is aggrieved by the directions contained in the order dated 30.1.09 in CC.107/09 that the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties calling for the inference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below. By the impugned order, the opposite parties are under directions to cancel Ext.A2 bill and to give a fresh bill for the period from 11/01 to 5/02. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he had a connection from the opposite parties vide Consumer No.21226 under VII B tariff and that he had stopped his business in November 2001. He has also submitted that the 1st opposite party had disconnected the service as per the request of the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that he has been served a bill for Rs.19,938/- after a period of 8 years and that if he was prepared to remit the amount as one time settlement, he would be given a deduction of Rs.6,205/-. It was also informed that if he did not pay the bill, revenue recovery proceedings would be initiated against him. Hence the complaint was filed praying for directions to cancel the bill and to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and costs. 3. The opposite parties filed version and contended that the complainant had not given any such application for disconnection and that he was a defaulter for the period from 2001 and as such his connection was dismantled on 5.6.07. It was further submitted that the opposite party issued the bill for the arrears during the above period and that the complaint was not maintainable before the Forum as revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against the complainant. Contending that there was no deficiency in service the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 4. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and Exts.A1 and A2 on his side. First opposite party and the Sr.Supdt of the KSEB were examined as OPW1 and 2 and Exts.B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the opposite parties. 5. Heard the appellant. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued before us that the Forum below has passed the order without proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances and also the relevant provisions of the supply of electrical energy to consumers. It is his very case that the Forum below had exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the order especially in the light of the fact that the complainant was proceeded under revenue recovery proceedings and in such a case the Forum ought to have found that the complaint was not maintainable. It is his further case that the complainant was a defaulter from 11/01 and in such a situation the issuance of the bill for Rs.19,938/- was legally sustainable and hence liable to be paid by the complainant. 7. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and a perusal of the order we find that the complainant had applied for the disconnection of his service in November 2001. It is also seen that OPW1, during cross examination has admitted that as per the request of the complainant, disconnection was effected in November 2001 itself. It is further found that the opposite parties had initiated revenue recovery proceedings only after the filing of the complaint before the Forum. It is to be seen that after disconnection if the complainant does not apply for the reconnection, the service has to be dismantled after 6 months (See Reg.34 (b) ii & 34 (d) of the conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy 1990). The opposite parties have no case that there was no request for disconnection in November 2001 and the opposite parties have not disconnected the service in the same month. The appellants would further argue that the complainant was using electricity even after 12/01. They have not produced any evidence to support such a contention. We are not inclined to allow the opposite parties/appellants to recover any amount from the consumers for the malfeasance of the employees of the opposite parties. It is also found that the Forum below has not completely disallowed the claim of the opposite parties. It has given freedom to the opposite parties to collect the charges for the period of 6 months from 11/01 to 5/02. More over no compensation or costs had been awarded by the Forum below. 8. In the said circumstances, we find that the appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. We do so accordingly. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT s/L | 
