KERALA  STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION

                    VAZHUTHACADU    THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

          APPEAL NO: 767/2003

                                    JUDGMENT DATED:15-11-2010

PRESENT

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN                        : JUDICIAL MEMBER

Alungal Mohammed, S/o Koyakutty,

Kadampuzha Post,                                             : APPELLANT

Jarathingal.

(By Adv.Sri.K.Hamza)

          Vs.

1.      The Asst. Engineer, KSEB,

Kadampuzha Post.

                                                          : RESPONDENTS

2.      The Asst. Executive Engineer,

Electrical Major Section,

Puthanathani.

JUDGMENT

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER

Appellant was the complainant and respondents were the opposite parties in OP.107/02 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram.  The above complaint was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in disconnecting the supply of electricity to the residence of the complainant for non payment of energy charges.  It is the case of the complainant that he went abroad by giving intimation to the opposite party/KSEB requesting to issue bill based on minimum consumption.  The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the claim for minimum charge.  They also contended that no intimation was given to them informing the alleged leaving of the complainant.  Thus, the opposite parties justified their action in demanding the electricity charges based on the Provisional Invoice Card.

2. Complainant has not adduced any evidence in support of his case that he needs only to pay the minimum charges only because he had given intimation while going abroad.  There is nothing on record to support the said case of the complainant.  On the other hand, the respondents/opposite parties vehemently disputed the case of the complainant regarding the alleged intimation given to the opposite parties.  Admittedly the appellant/complainant was provided with a Provisional Invoice Card and thereby he was bound to pay the amount covered by the Provisional Invoice Card.  There is no dispute that the appellant/complainant failed to make payment towards the Provisional Invoice Card.  Thus, the appellant/complainant was a defaulter in making payment towards the electricity charges covered by the Provisional Invoice Card.  There is no dispute that the appellant/complainant failed to make payment towards the Provisional Invoice Card.  The appellant/complainant was a defaulter in making payment towards the Provisional Invoice Card.  Therefore the respondents/opposite parties are perfectly justified in disconnecting the supply of electricity to the house of the complainant for non payment of the electricity charges.  It is to be noted that the appellant/complainant remitted the defaulted payment and thereby he got the aforesaid supply restored. The appellant/complainant miserably failed in establishing his case.  The facts available on record would show that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the respondents/opposite parties.  It is to be noted that the respondents have only demanded the current charges as per the Provisional Invoice Card.  So, the Forum below can be justified in dismissing the complaint in OP.107/02.  There is no material to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below.  The present appeal deserves dismissal.

In the result the appeal is dismissed.  The impugned order dated:31/12/2002 passed by CDRF, Malappuram in OP.107/02 is confirmed.  As far as the present appeal is concerned, there will be no order as to costs.

M.V. VISWANATHAN  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

VL.