KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO. 186/06 JUDGMENT DATED 23/7/09 PRESENT:- JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER 1. The Secretary, K.S.E.Board, Vaidhyuthi Bhavan, pattom, Trivandrum : APPELLANTS 2. The Asst. Engineer, Electrical Section, Chambalam P.O., Kallar, Nedumkandam. (By Adv. B.Sakthidharan Nair ) Vs 1. Shake Muhammed, S/o.Abdul muthaliv Ravuthar Shake Muhammed Estate, Udumbanchola. P.O., Idukki District. 2. P.V.Thankachan, Lineman, KSEB, Udumbanchola Area, : RESPONDENTS Nedumkandam Section, Idukki District. 3. The Agriculture Officer, Krishi Bhavan , Udumbancholo P.O., Udumbanchola. (By Adv.V.m.Joymon & K.R.,Haridas) JUDGMENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by CDRF Idukki in the file of OP 131/05 dated 21/11/05. The appellants are the opposite parties prefers this appeal from the above mentioned impugned order. 2. In short the complainant had an electric connection for agricultural purpose in the year 2000 as consumer No.1259. The electricity charge was being remitted by the Krishi Bhavan along with 16 other consumers. While so without assigning any reason the electric connection to this particular number and also the house connection of the complainant was cut by the 3rd opposite party on 31.3.05. The complainant recorded his complaint in the complaint book in the office of the 2nd opposite party. Subsequently on the next day, the house connection alone was restored. Due to the disconnection of the agricultural connection the complainant could not irrigate his a acres of Cardamom estate as a result of which the cardamom plants have dried out resulting loss to the tune of about Rs.10,000/- The opposite parties have no authority to disconnect the power supply. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint has been filed for a direction to the 1st and 2nd opposite parties to restore the connection and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.15,000/-. 3. The 2nd opposite parties appeared and filed their written version. It is contended that the complainant had executed a minimum guarantee agreement with the electricity board in respect of Consumer No.1259 and on that bases connection was given on 5/10/99. As per the agreement, the complainant had undertaken to repay the expenses incurred by the Board for drawing the line in the course of 7 years and as per the agreement the minimum guarantee amount per month would come to Rs.788/-. But the complainant made application before the Krishi Bhavan, Udumbanchola and his minimum guarantee amount was caused to be remitted by the Krishi Bhavan on the misrepresentation that it was the current charges. But as per letter No.17/03-04 dated d27/1/05 of the Krishi Bhavan it was stated that it was not possible for them on remit the minimum guarantee amount. On the basis of that letter a notice was given to the complainant, through the lineman directing him to remit the arrears if minimum guarantee amount amounting to Rs.29034/- before 7/3/05. Since that amount was not paid before 31/3/05 the supply was disconnected by the lineman which was complying with all conditions contained in section 56 of the Electricity Act of 2003. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard and the opposite parties also filed supporting written versions. The complainant examined as PW1 and marked Exts P1 to P8 and the opposite party examined as DW1 and Ext.R1 and R2 were also marked as documents on their side. The Forum below answered all the questions arised for consideration in this dispute and arrived that the 1st and 2nd opposite parties are liable to pay compensation for the loss sustained by the complainant due to disconnection of the electricity energy supply. The Forum below directed 1st and 2nd opposite parties to restore supply to Consumer No.1259 with immediate effect at any rate within 3 days of receipt of a copy of this order and to pay Rs.15,000/- by way of compensation to the complainant within 30 days, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest from the date of default and will continue to pay Rs.500/- per month to the complainant as damages. Opposite parties 1 and 2 directed to ascertain the actual MC amount and the current charges separately due from the complainant and will communicate to the 4th opposite party and also directed to issue fresh bill to the complainant in excess of Rs.20,000/- and payable by the complainant. This appeal prefers from the above impugned order. 5. Heard both sides in detailed and perusing the evidence available in the case records. This Commission is seeing that the order passed by the Forum is legally sustainable in accordance with law and evidence. It cannot be understood that on the appellant/opposite parties reluctant to give the separate MC amount and charges to the complainant. Before this Commission also the counsel for the appellants was taken a negative attitude towards furnishing this details to the complainant consumer. The reason mentioned for this there were lakhs of consumers in the electricity board and it is not possible to give such detail bill to each and every consumers. It is a contradictory view from the part of the appellant/opposite party. Suppose this complainant who will ask such a details as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act what will be the attitude from the part of the appellant. This Commission is not seeing any reason to interfere in the order passed by the Forum below. K.S.E.B. is not a sovereign. People are the sovereign in a democratic country like India. In the result this appeal is dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the Forum below. Both parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. These points are answered accordingly. M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT PK.
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA | | 
