KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.484/05 JUDGMENT DATED.04.08.08 PRESENT:- JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER 1.Asst.Executive Engineer, Electrical Section, Kerala State Electricity Board, Ollur, Thrissur. 2. Kerala State Electricity Board, : APPELLANTS represented by Secretary, Vydyuthi Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair) Vs T.K.Varghese, S/o.Rappai, Thattil Kunnayil House, : RESPONDENT P.O.Thaikkattussery, Valichira Village, Thrissur. JUDGMENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER This appeal is directed against the order dated.26.11.04 in OP.No.434/04, which is passed by the CDRF, Thrissur by a common order in OP.No.434/04, OP.No.1053/04 and OP.No.1079/04, directing the electricity board to keep in abeyance all steps taken for the recovery of arrears, disconnection steps and steps for dismantling and other coercive steps awaiting the list from the Agricultural Officers concerned and payment by the State through the concerned Agricultural Officers, to restore the disconnected supply etc. 2. The case of the complainant is that he is an agriculturist and is eligible for the exemption from payment of electricity charges. The version of the complainant is that he submitted application to the Agricultural Officer for getting his name included in the list of eligible agriculturists. But he received electricity bill on 11.2.04 for Rs.10,079/- as arrears from March 1997 to December 2003 and he remitted Rs.1329/- towards first instalment and his electric supply was disconnected on 19.09.04 due to non-payment of second instalment. Hence he filed complaint before the Forum for getting exemption granted to agriculturalists; to refund the amount paid and Rs.2000/- as compensation and cost. 3. The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed version. It is contended that the name of the complainant is not included in the list of persons exempted from paying electricity charges and hence the opposite parties are justified in proceeding against the complainant. 4. Agricultural Officer also filed version and contended that no application was filed by the complainant seeking exemption from paying electricity charges and so that the name of the complainant is not included in the list of exempted persons. 5. We have heard the counsel for the appellants and gone through the records. There was no representation for the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the lower forum has failed to consider provisions contained in the Government Order(MS)30/99/AD dated.4.2.99 and another order dated.25.2.99 issued by the KSEB. 6. As per clause 4 of G.O. (MS)30/99/AD dated.4.2.99 the concerned Agricultural Officer is to make the list of all the eligible agriculturists and it should be submitted to the concerned Assistant Executive Engineer of the KSEB and such list is to be prepared and submitted once in every three months. The concerned officers of KSEB must prepare the statement showing the electricity charges due from eligible agriculturists and also submit invoice to the Agricultural Officer and it is the duty of the Agricultural Officer to see that the amount covered by the said invoice is paid to or entrusted with the concerned Assistant Engineer or Assistant Executive Engineer and the said amount is to be paid within 10 days from getting the statement and the invoice. If the amount shown in the invoice has not paid within 10 days of getting that invoice, the KSEB can disconnect the supply of electricity. 7. The concerned Agricultural Officer and concerned officers of KSEB failed to produce the documents which are necessary to substantiate their case regarding preparation of the statement of eligible agriculturists, invoice etc. KSEB did not produce the list submitted to them by the Agricultural Officer. Agricultural Officer has also failed to produce the list of eligible agriculturists. 8. In the aforesaid circumstance we are of the view that this case is to be remanded to the lower forum for fresh disposal in accordance with law after permitting the parties to adduce evidence in support of their contentions if they so desire. In the result the above appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.11.04 passed by CDRF, Thrissur in OP.434/04 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower forum for fresh disposal in accordance with law. As far as the present appeal is concerned the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. The case is posted before the forum on 29.09.08. The forum is directed to issue notice to both parties. The office is directed to transmit this order to the forum urgently. SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT R.AV
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN | | 
