Kerala

Kollam

CC/09/227

Ramakrishna Pillai.N,Kallarakkal Puthan Veedu,S.R.P Market PO,Thazhava Village,Karunagappally Taluk,Kollam - Complainant(s)

Versus

Secretary,KSEB and other. - Opp.Party(s)

12 Aug 2010

ORDER


Consumer Disputes Redressal ForumCivil Station,Kollam
Complaint Case No. CC/09/227
1. Ramakrishna Pillai.N,Kallarakkal Puthan Veedu,S.R.P Market PO,Thazhava Village,Karunagappally Taluk,KollamKerala ...........Appellant(s)

Versus.
1. Secretary,KSEB and other.Vaidyuthi Bhavan,Pattom, ThiruvananthapuramKerala2. Assistant Engineer,Electrical Section Office,KSEB,Manappally,KarunagappallyKollamKollamKerala ...........Respondent(s)



BEFORE:

PRESENT :

Dated : 12 Aug 2010
JUDGEMENT

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER.

 

            This is a complaint filed by the complainant seeking to change his tariff from commercial   to domestic and to  refund of the amount which he had paid in R.R  proceedings and also to reconnect his electric connection. 

          The complainant’s case is that he had a house with a domestic connection within the jurisdiction of   2nd opp.party which he had  rented out.   The tenant mis used the domestic connection for commercial purpose and on  detecting opp.party 2 changed the domestic tariff to commercial tariff and issued electricity bills accordingly.  Subsequently the complainant evicted the tenant and applied to the 2nd opp.party to change the commercial tariff to domestic tariff and remitted necessary fee.  But despite several oral and written representations the tariff was not changed.  On 5.6. 2007 the complainant remitted all the arrears in electricity charge and fine.  Later on 11.6.2007 he applied to the 2nd opp.party with fee of Rs.35/-for changing the tariff and reinstallation of electricity.  On the basis of the application the 2nd opp.party is not take any action to change the tariff and re installation of electricity.  Later he directly inquired into the office of the 2nd opp.party for change the tariff and reinstallation but they take no action.  On 30.11.2007 the complainant sent a registered application to the 2nd opp.party for changing the tarrif but the opp.paty take no action.   Subsequently on 27.7.20076, 25..9.07, 25.1.2008,15.2.2008 and 9.4.2008 the 2nd opp.party issued demand notice to the complainant and he remitted the amount in demand notice.  On 8.4.2008 the 2nd opp.party dismantle the electricity wires.  On 19.8.2008 the complainant filed an application by Right to Information Act.  On 27.9.2008 the 2nd opp.party give reply with false statement.  Later he applied to State Right to Information Commission.   According to their reply the tariff was changed with in two months of the application.  On 5.2.2.2008 RR proceedings notice was issued and the complainant remitted the amount in RR notice..  In the complaint the complainant has stated that on 27.7.07, 25.9.07, 25.1.08, 15.2.08 and 9.4.2008 2nd opp.party has issued demand notices to the complainant and he ignored the same on the ground that those are unnecessarily and arbitrary.  After that the connection was dismantled by opp.party 2 and initiated RR proceedings. 

 

          Opp.party’s main contention are that since the complainant failed to remit the penal bill the electric connected was disconnected and subsequently dismantled.  Revenue Recovery proceedings were initiated against the complainant and the entire dues were realized through revenue recovery proceedings.   The complainant filed a complaint before this Forum as CC.No.56/09 against this opp.party and the revenue authorities.  Now this complaint is filed suppressing the aforesaid facts seeking the same relief.  Here according to the complainant the 2nd opp.party issued demand notices to the complainant unnecessary and arbitrary.   Then the complainant would take appropriate action by approaching the Higher officials of opp.party 2 rather than ignoring the same and such conduct of the complainant has resulted in the initiation of Revenue Recovery proceedings.

 

          More over the Revenue Recovery Act bars jurisdiction of Civil Courts and other authorities which includes the Consumer Forum.  Ext. D1 shows that the complainant filed this complaint suppressing the facts mentioned in C.C.No.56/09.  The opp.party admits that they are willing to give service connection to the complainant on submitting the necessary application as per terms.  By considering the entire evidence  we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties.

 

          In the result the complaint fails and is dismissed without costs.

 

            Dated this the      12th     day of August, 2010.

 

                                                                                    .

I N D E X

List of witnesses for the complainant

PW.1. – V. Ramakrishna Pillai

List of documents for the complainant

P1. – Photocopy of receipt dt. 5.6.07

P2. – Photocopy of receipt dt. 17.6.07

P3. – {jhpcp[u pf a[[;ocatopm dt. 11.6.07

P4. – Photocopy of application dt.30.11.2007

P5. – Postal receipt dt. 30.11.2007

P6. –Acknowledgement card dt. 1.12.2007

P7. – Demand notice dt. 12.2.2008

P8. – Complaint dt. 16.2.2008

P9. – Postal receipts

P10. – Demand notice dt. 9.4.08P11. – Photocopy of application dt. 21.4.08

P12. – Registered complaint dt. 22.4.08

P13. – Postal receipt dt. 22.4.2008

P14.- applications dt. 7.6.08

P15 – Postal receipt

P16. – Complaint dt. 19.8.2008

P17. – Reply notice dt. 27.9.08

P18. – Recovery notice.

List of witnesses for the opp-.party: NIL

List of documents for the opp.party

D1. – complaint.