IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 30th day of October, 2017
Filed on 28.01.2016
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.34/2016
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri.Divakaran.K 1. The Assistant Executive Engineer
S/o Kesavan Electrical Major Section
Lal Bhavan Mankombu, Alappuzha
Erupathinalayiram kayal
E-Block, Kainadi.P.O 2. The Secretary
Alappuzha (Now Residing at KSEB
Kochuveliyil House Pattam
Avalookunnu.P.O Thiruvananthapuram
Alappuzha
(Adv. R.B.Nijo)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
Complainant is a consumer of opposite party and his consumer No. is 636. He was paying the electricity charge without any default. While so from 2014 April onwards he was not getting electricity. When he complained about it to the 1st opposite party he came to know that they disconnected the electricity connection due to the maintenance work of transformer. Even though he complained about it several times so far no result. Since the electricity connection was disconnected by opposite party the several electrical items of the complainant became defective. Years back opposite party had disconnected electricity connection of the complainant and he had filed complaint as CC No 445/98 before the District Forum Alappuzha and it was allowed and now the connection was disconnected due to the vengeance.
2. Version of the opposite party is as follows:-
Complainant was not a permanent resident in the place where electricity connection was given under the said consumer No. Since he was not permanent resident in order to avoid some difficulties and also due to the electricity theft the connection was cut off by opposite party. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
Along with the complainant the complaint also filed and IA.No. 37/16 for and re-instating the electricity connection which was disconnected by the opposite party. The said IA.No. was allowed and opposite party restored electricity connection.
3. Complainant was examined as PW1; documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 series and Ext.A2. Opposite party was examined as RW1, documents produced as Ext.B1 to Ext.B2 were marked as subject to objection.
4. Points for consideration are:-
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
ii) If so, the reliefs and costs?
5. According to the complainant electricity connection to his house in consumer No. 636 was disconnected by opposite party and he has not received electricity connection from April 2014 till day they restored the connection as per order of the Forum in IA,No.37/16. According to the opposite party they disconnected electricity connection, since the complainant was not a permanent resident in the house where said connection was given. Hence in order to prevent theft of electricity and also the accidents due to electrocution they disconnected the electric supply on the particular line. It is pertinent to note that the opposite party had not produced any documents to substantiation their contention. Had they received any complaint from anybody they could have produce it. Apart from that while cross examining the opposite party she deposed before Forum that they did not get any complaint from anybody. It is an admitted fact that they have disconnected electricity on April 2014 and they have restored the connection in the year 2016. It is also very important to note that the opposite part has not given a notice to the complainant before the disconnecting the electricity connection. Ext.A1 series show that even though there was no change in the meter reading the opposite party has taken Rs. 40 as energy charge and Rs. 12 as meter reading and Rs.4 as duty charge from the complainant during the period in which the electricity connection remained disconnected. Another contention of the opposite party is that complainant is not permanent resident in the place where the connection was given.
The physical absence of a consumer is not a criteria for disconnecting the electric supply. He admittedly not a defaulter in paying the electricity charge. The reason put forward by the opposite party in disconnecting the electric supply on the ground of theft of electricity and electrocution are untenable. It has come out in evidence in earlier occasion also same stand was taken by the opposite party by disconnecting the electric supply and same was restored at the intervention of this Forum and on Challenging by the opposite party before the Hon’ble High Court it was approved. So their contention is that he was not permanent resident in Alappuzha is untenable. From the above discussion we are of opinion that disconnection of the electricity supply to the house of complainant is defect and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The allegation of the complainant that most of his electrical items were become defective is not proved. It is true that said act of the opposite party has caused much inconvenience to the complainant.
In the result the complaint is allowed, opposite parties are directed to give Rs. 5000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) towards compensation and Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) towards cost of proceedings. The opposite parties also directed to refund Rs.120/- with interest at the rate of 8% from the date of complaint till realization to the complainant. Opposite parties are further directed to maintain the electric supply to the complaint as per the norms. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of the receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by him corrected by me an pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th t day of October, 2017.
Sd/-Smt.Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/-Smt. Jasmine. D. (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - K. Divakaran (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Electricity Bills
Ext.A2 - Copy of Appeal
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Mathew Jacob.M. (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Copy of consumption pattern
Ext.B2 - Copy of Bills of demands.
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
