Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. The petitioner's case is as follows: Petitioner conducted a factory as self-employment for earning his livelihood in the name and style as ACE plastics. The electric connection for his factory was availed by the opposite party. At the time of instalation the petitioner remitted the cash deposit. During the year of 2000 when the factory was in loss the petitioner applied for the disconnection of electric connection. On March 2001 officials of the opposite party disconnected the electric connection Before disconnection, they have taken meter reading.The cash deposit remitted by the petitioner was adjusted with the energy charges due. The entire transaction between the petitioner and opposite party were settled and there was no amount due to the -2- opposite party. On 24..8..2006 the petitioner was served with a revenue recovery notice demanding payment of an amount of Rs. 4412/-. The petitioner remitted the said amount of Rs. 4412/- before the Deputy Tahsildar (R.R). According to the petitioner the demand of the said amount after closing the entire transaction is a clear deficiency of service and is an unfair trade practice. No notice was sent to the petitioner before initiating the R.R proceedings. So the petitioner prays for refund of Rs. 4412/- along with 12% interest from 28..8..2006 till realisation along with cost of the proceedings. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that even though the connection of the petitioner was dismantled on 30..3..2001, as per his request. At the time of dismantling, according to the opposite party the petitioner was defaulter of current charge of Rs. 1365/- for the month 2/2001. So the net current charges outstanding after adjusting the cash deposit was Rs. 1735/- Since the petitioner has not remitted the said amount notice was sent to him on 23..6..2001. Later on 28..5..2006 registered notice was sent to the petitioner since the petitioner has not remitted the due amount RR proceedings was initiated against him. So the opposite party prays for dismissal of the petition of their costs. Points for determination are: i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party? ii) Relifes and cost ? Evidence in the case consists of proof affidavit filed by the petitioner Ext. A1 and A2 documents. The opposite parties evidence consists of there affidavits. -3- Point No. 1 The petitioner during the year 2000 as self employment for earning his lively hood, conducted a factory in the name and style as ACE plastics. When the factory was in loss he demanded to the opposite party for disconnection of the electric supply and thus on 30..3..2001 the officials of the opposite party disconnected the electric supply, they had taken the meter reading and the cash deposit was adjusted towards energy charges. According to the petitioner the entire transaction was settled and there was no amounts due to the opposite party, the opposite party's case is that after adjusting the cash deposit an amount of Rs. 1735/- was due to the opposite party and the opposite party on 23..6..2001 issued a letter to the petitioner demanding the said amount. Later on 28..5..2006 the opposite party issued a registered notice to the petitioner even after the receipt of the notice the petitioner has not remitted the amount so, revenue recovery proceedings are initiated against the petitioner. The petitioners definite case is that he had remitted the entire amount as full and final settlement and acceptance of an amount of Rs. 4412/- from the petitioner by the opposite party is a clear deficiency of service, the petitioner produced a receipt of acknowledgement for receipt of money the said document is marked as Ext. A1. The petitioner has averred in page '6' of his proof affidavit that after remitting the amount as per Ext. A1 the petitioner has gone to the opposite party's office and found that the opposite party's had done certain manipulation in the records kept in the office. The opposite party has not denied the said averments in their affidavit. The opposite party has not produced any documents to prove that an amount of Rs. 4412/- was due to them or to prove that they issued a letter on 23..6..2001 as alleged in the version. So, we are of the opinion that acceptance of an amount by way of revenue recovery. -4- On after elapse of 6 years without any prior notice amounts deficiency of service on their part and the said act of the opposite party is an unfair trade practice, point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2. In view of the finding in point No. 1, the petition is allowed and the petition is entitled to get the relief sought for. In the result the following order is passed, the opposite parties are ordered to refund the amount of Rs. 4412/- along with 12% interest from 28..8..2006 till realisation and also they are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1000/- as cost of the proceedings. As there is no evidence of loss and injury. No compensation is ordered. This order will be complied with within 30 days of receipt of this order. Dictated by me, transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 26th day of March, 2008.
......................Bindhu M Thomas ......................Santhosh Kesava Nath P
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
