IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 21st day of December , 2011
Filed on 18-08-2011
Present
1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.283/2011
between
Complainant :- | Opposite party:- |
Sri. Alexander J Karuvelithara, S/o Late K.C. Joseph Residing at Karuvelithara House, Mithrakary P.O, Alappuzha (D). (Adv.George Cherian Karipparambil.) | The Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Kerala State Electricity Board, Kindagara,Alappuzha (D) (Adv. A. Anilkumar , Alappuzha) |
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainant’s case in a nutshell is as follows: - The complainant is the consumer of the opposite party bearing consumer No.7485-0. The aforesaid connection is three-phase intended for agricultural purpose. Strangely still, the opposite party issued a bill carrying No.195407 dated 23rd August 2011 for an amount of Rs.11717/-(Rupees Eleven thousand seven hundred and seventeen only ). The demand of the opposite party is in violation of the concerned law. The opposite party committed deficiency of service. On being aggrieved on this, the complainant approached this Forum praying compensation and other relief.
2. Notice was served. The opposite party turned up and filed version. The opposite party contends that the consumer is liable to pay additional security deposit in line with the electric charge he pays as per the tariff in force. According to the opposite party, the contract of the consumer is with KSEB, and not with the government. Hence as per section 16 of KSEB terms and condition of Supply2005, the complainant is liable to pay the additional security deposit.
3. The complainant evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant and the documents Exbts Al & 2 were marked. Save filing version, the opposite party has not filed any document.
4. Taking into account the contentions of the parties, the questions that come up before us for consideration are:-
(1) Whether the complainant is liable to deposit any additional security amount with the opposite party?
(2) If the opposite party committed deficiency of service?
5. Keeping in view the contentions of the parties, we anxiously looked into the materials placed on record by the parties. Concededly, the complainant is a consumer with the opposite party. Being the electric connection provided is for agricultural purpose, the electric charge is given by the Kerala State Government. As such, the complainant is not liable to pay the additional security deposit, the complainant contends. Bearing alive in mind the said specific contention, we meticulously went through the pertaining provisions as to the dispute in the instant case. We perused Exbt Al Bill. On perusal of Exbt AI, it appears that as per the relevant provisions of the KSEB terms and condition of Supply 2005, the consumer is liable to make additional deposit of security amount along the lines of the increasing electric charges he pays. It is significant to notice that the complainant has not specifically disputed the existence of such provision, but his exact contention is that the complainant being the consumer of the opposite party as an agriculturist, is not liable to pay the said deposit. According to the complainant, the electric charge is being given by the government. Going by the entire circumstance of the case and the relevant provisions, we are persuaded to hold that even if it is assumed that the electric charge is being paid by the government the contract of the complainant is with the opposite party. When the contract is with the opposite party, the complainant is liable to abide by the various rules and provisions that govern the material contract. In this backdrop, the contention of the opposite party that the complainant is bound to deposit the additional security amount for his connection of electrical energy inspire confidence in the mind of this Forum. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. It goes without saying that the complaint must fail.
6. In the light of what have been elaborated hereinabove, we hold that the complaint is liable to be dismissed, and the same stands dismissed. The complainant shall deposit the additional security with the opposite party the amount figured in Exbt Al document within 30 days of receipt of this order. The opposite party shall resort to following procedure pertaining to Exbt.A1 bill on expiry of the said 30 days.
The complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 21st day of December , 2011 Sd/-Sri.Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Sri.K. Anirudhan:
Sd/-Smt. N.Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Ext. A1 - Letter dated 21.07-2011
Ext.A2 - Electricity Bill dated 23.07.20011
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- sh/-
Compared by-
