SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT) The complaint is filed against the deficiency in service of KSEB for obtaining electric connection to the complainant. The complainant is an age old widow who is working as a coolie. Complainant paid Rs.25/- in opposite partys office on 9.11.2004 for getting electric connection to her residence No.238 in ward No.3 of Karimannoor Grama Panchayath. After that, she paid Rs.50/- as application fee(AF), but the receipt for the same was not given by the opposite party. On 30.12.2004 as per the direction of the Ist opposite party the complainants daughter Suseela paid Rs.400/- as cash deposit(CD) in opposite partys office as No.9160. The neighbouring persons of the complainant, who paid the fee with the complainant has got the electric connection, but the complainant did not get the same. So the complainant enquired the matter in opposite partys office, but they replied that there is no application or file in their office in the name of the complainant. The complainant filed complaints before Vannappuram office and Thodupuzha office several times, but there is no response from the part of opposite party. After several enquiry, she revealed that the opposite party is trying to give electric connection to one, Bhavani, Theruvammalayil, West Kodikkulam in the CD No.9160, which is paid by the complainant. Complainant made complaint before the Assistant Executive Engineer, KSEB, Thodupuzha, and he understood the details and ordered to give electric connection to the complainant. But they are not ready to do so. Complainant approached the Panchayath President, Kodikkulam and with the Panchayath President the complainant approached the said Bhavani Theruvammalayil, West Kodikkulam. The said Bhavani told that, she did not pay the CD to the opposite party and there is mistake happened to opposite party. Alleging deficiency in service for giving electric connection to the complainant, the complaint is filed, also for getting compensation in various heads. 2. The opposite party filed written version, denied all the things in the complaint. The complainant did not produce any receipt to payment of Rs.25/- to opposite party on 9.11.2004. By perusing the receipt book they understood that Paru Bhavani has paid Rs.25/- and received the booklet for getting electric connection. The CD was paid by Bhavani, Theruvammalayil, West Kodikkulam for getting electric connection to her residence at Kodikkulam Panchayath Ward No.8, House No.IC as Consumer No.9160 and Receipt No.82/518/30.12.2004. No money was paid by the complainant in opposite partys office for getting electric connection for her residence. No application was given by her in opposite partys office. The same was told to complainants daughter, when she came to opposite partys office for enquiry. The opposite party is not responsible for any mental agony and expenses caused to the complainant. After completion of the wiring, the completion certificate and all the details must produce before the opposite partys office. Then the application fee and CD must be paid, then only a person can be considered as a registered consumer. So the opposite party cannot be consider the complainant as a registered consumer. There is no deficiency in the part of the opposite party. 3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ? 4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PWs 1 to 4 and Exts.P1 to P3 marked on the side of the complainant and the testimony of DW1 and Exts.R1 and R2 marked on the side of the opposite parties. 5. The POINT :- The complainants case is that the complainant paid all the required amount in the opposite partys office, but the opposite party by mistake it is written as Bhavani Theruvammalayil in the place of Bhavani Kanjampurathu, in all the documents. So the eligible person to get the electricity connection is Bhavani Kanjampurathu and not the Bhavani Theruvammalayil. It is a mistake happened to the clerk who wrote the receipt. But the contention of the opposite party is that in all the documents in the opposite partys office the name of the consumer as Consumer No.9160 is one Bhavani,Theruvammalayil. No receipt is produced by the said Bhavani, Kanjampurathu to prove her version. There is no facility in opposite partys office to know who paid the entire amount in opposite partys office in the name of Bhavani, Theruvammalayil. So it is admitted by opposite party that somebody has paid the CD for electric connection in opposite party s office as Consumer No.9160. Ext.P2 is the receipt for the same produced by the complainant. Ext.P3 is the letter produced by the complainant written by Bhavani Gopalan, Theruvammalayil, West Koddikkulam stating that, she had applied for electric connection. But the cash deposit(CD) was not paid by the said Bhavani. In opposite partys office it is by mistake, written that the CD is paid by her as Consumer No.9160. Bhavani, Kanjampurathu, Thommankuth P.O is paid the CD amount in opposite partys office and she requests to get the electric connection in the name of the complainant. There is signature and thumb impression of the said Bhavani, Theruvammalayil in Ext.P3 dated 25.10.2006. There are three witnesses signed in the same document, first witness is the Panchayath President who is PW4 and the second witness is her husband. The third one is the neighbour of the said Bhavani, Theruvammalayil. Ext.R1 is the agreement produced by opposite party for getting the electric connection in which the Bhavani, Theruvammalayil is duly signed. Ext.R2 is the letter produced by the said Bhavani, Theruvammalayil dated 17.11.2006 addressed to opposite party. In which it is written that she is an age old lady, not able to travel alone. Her only son is mentally retarded person, so she entrusted her daughter for paying the CD amount in opposite partys office. She paid the CD amount Rs.400/- in opposite partys office. Due to rush the officer in charge of writing the bill asked her to come on the next day for collecting the bill for the same. But she was not able to go to the opposite partys office on the very next day. The said Bhavani was aware of the facts only after a long time. Due to her unawareness she signed in Ext.P3. And she requested for getting electric connection in her name as Consumer No.9160.The said BhavaniTheruvammalayil is examined as PW2, she deposed that she did not pay the CD amount in opposite partys office. Also she never entrusted her daughter to pay the same. She never write a letter to the opposite party. She only signed in white paper. One wiring man named Peethambaran was familiar to her and he asked her to sign in white paper. In cross examination she deposed that she signed in the stamp paper at the opposite partys office, for the purpose of applying electric connection. In re-examination she deposed that PW4, her husband and PW2 came to her house and got her signature and thumb impression. PW2, PW3 and PW4 supported PW1 who is the daughter of the complainant. Anyway there is a lot of corrections in the place of name and in the place of amount in Ext.P2. The first name written was cancelled and again written in the above as Bhavani, Theruvammalayil, Vannappuram. The amount was written as Twenty Five and was cancelled then written as Rs.400/-. DW1, who was the Sub Engineer of the KSEB deposed that the complainant came to DW1 and he perused the entire cash book. It shows that the complainant paid only Rs.25/- to opposite party and the other payments were done by the other Bhavani. The Engineer directed to give electric connection to Bhavani Gopalan, not to the complainant. The opposite party did not try to prove the entire truth. The opposite party never tried to investigate who made the payment in the opposite partys office. In Ext.R2, it is clearly written that the daughter of PW2 named Valsala has made the payment in opposite partys office. The opposite party never interested to make the said Valsala, or the person who wrote the bill as witness before the Forum for revealing the original facts. PW1 was working in opposite partys office as a coolie in that period. The bill produced by the complainant as Ext.P2 is full of corrections . The opposite party never challenged the genuineness of the same. PW4 deposed that Ext.P3 was written by PW4. The opposite party never challenged the Ext.P3. The witness signed in Ext.P3 is the husband of PW3. Opposite party never tried to make the other person signed in Ext.P3 as a witness. The opposite party should give explanation how the receipt came in the hand of the complainant which is in the name of PW2. If the documents in the opposite partys office are correct, why the opposite party did not give electric connection to the said Bhavani, Theruvammalayil. So it means that they are also in suspicion in the matter. PW2 is an old aged illetrate. So we think that it is a gross deficiency in the part of opposite party to find out the original person who paid the cash deposit in the opposite partys office. There is no complaint from the part of PW2 against the complainant or the opposite party for not getting electric connection to them. So we think that it is fit to direct the opposite party to clear their mistake and give electric connection to the complainant. And also Rs.1,000/- for the cost of the petition. As a result, the petition allowed. The opposite party is directed to give back the cash deposit, application fee and form booklet fee to the complainant and also Rs.1,000/- as cost of the petition within one month from the date of receiving the order. The opposite party is also directed to give electric connection within 15 days to the complainant, if the complainant approaches and gives a new application and prescribed fee is paid. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 21st day of July, 2008
......................Laiju Ramakrishnan ......................Sheela Jacob
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
