KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL 

     COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

                                              APPEAL  NO: 700/2006

                              JUDGMENT DATED:21..05..2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA                                      : MEMBER

1.The Secretary,

  KSEB, Pattom, TVPM.

2.The Assistant Executive Engineer,

  Electrical Sub Division,                                                  : APPELLANTS

  KSEB, Changanacherry, Kottayam.

3.The Asst. Engineer,

  Electrical Section,

  Electrical Sub Division, KSEB,

  Changanacherry, Kottayam.

(By Adv:Sri.V.S.Vineeth Kumar)

                        Vs.

Sulekha Saidu Mohammed,

Fathima Manzil,

Near Railway Station,                                                        : RESPONDENT

Changanacherry, Kottayam.

                                                JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

The appellants are the opposite parties/KSEB in CC:187/05 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam.  The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation for deficiency in service in not reconnecting the supply even after depositing the amounts due.

2. The case of the complainant is that on 17/8/2005 her electric connection was disconnected for non payment of electric charge.  She remitted the amount on 24/08/2005 but reconnection was effected only on 30/8/2005.  Then she complained before the Chief Engineer, KSEB Secretary, Hon’ble Minister for power and after the matter was reported in leading Malayalam Dailies.  It is also mentioned by the complainant that on 19/8/2005 itself she went to the office to remit the amount but it was not received.  The Assistant Engineer directed her to remit the amount on 24/8/2005.

3. On the other hand, the opposite parties have contended that the complainant is a chronic defaulter.  It is admitted that on 24/8/2005 the current charges were remitted.  According to them the electric connection was reconnected on the same day.  On 28/8/2005 a complaint was seen in the complaint register but as it was a holiday the lineman went to the house of the complainant on the next day.  The complainant prevented the lineman from rectifying the defect.   On 30/8/2005 the Assistant Engineer personally visited the house of the complainant and rectified the fault in the meter.

4. The evidence adduced consisted of proof affidavits of the respective parties, Exts.A1 to A4, B1 to B3  and C1.

5. On a perusal of the order of the Forum we find that the Forum has relied on the affidavit filed by the complainant.  Evidently there is lapse on the part of the opposite parties.  The very admission by the opposite parties that on 28/8/2005 happened to be a holiday and hence on the next day the lineman went to the house of the  complainant itself reveals the attitude of the opposite parties as necessary staff would be on duty on holidays also as the consumers are not expected to remain in dark during holidays.  We find that there is no illegality in the order of the Forum.

In the result the appeal is dismissed.

Office is directed to forward LCR along with the copy of this judgment to the Forum urgently.

JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER

VL.