Kerala

StateCommission

A/08/295

M.P.RAMAKRISHNAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE ASISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER - Opp.Party(s)

S.REGHUKUMAR

29 Jul 2009

ORDER


.
CDRC, Sisuvihar Lane, Sasthamangalam.P.O, Trivandrum-10
Appeal(A) No. A/08/295

M.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

THE ASISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


For the Appellant :


For the Respondent :




ORDER

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.

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
    VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
 
                                                             
                                                 APPEAL No.295/08
                             JUDGMENT DATED 29.7.09
PRESENT
 
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU           -- PRESIDENT
SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA                                      -- MEMBER
 
M.P.Ramakrishnan,
S/0 Kelupanikkar,                                                        -- APPELLANT
B.G.Enterprise,
Meenangadi, Wayanad.
   (By Adv.S.Reghukumar)
 
                  Vs.
1. The Assistant Executive Enginner,
    Electrical Major Section,
    Sulthan Bathery.
2. The Secretary,                                                    -- RESPONDENTS
    Vyduthi Bhavan,
    Thiruvananthapuram.
 
 
                                                JUDGMENT
 
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT
 
            The appellant is the complainant in OP.23/01 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. The complaint stands dismissed.
          2. It is the case of the complainant that the electric meter is recording electricity in such a manner that is disproportionate to the use. The complainant had applied for getting the meter tested and also remitted the amount required. But, the opposite party did not comply with the request and   issued bills as per the excessive recordings in the meter.
          3. According to the opposite party no such complaint with respect to the working of the meter was received. According to them there is nothing wrong with the meter. Earlier the meter was replaced in February 1999.
          4. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavit of both sides Exts.PW1, OP W1, and A1 to A8.
          5. As pointed out the counsel for the appellant/complainant, the Forum has not considered the evidence adduced in the matter. The order cannot be treated as a considered one. 
          6. In the circumstances, the order of the Forum is set aside. The Forum is directed to dispose of the matter afresh after hearing both sides and taking into consideration the evidence adduced in the matter.
          7. The case stands posted before the Forum on 17/9/09.
          The office is directed to dispatch the copy of this order to the Forum urgently.
 
 
JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU-- PRESIDENT
 
 
 M.K.ABDULLA SONA           -- MEMBER
 
 



......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU