Kerala

StateCommission

243/2004

M.S.Menon - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Asst.Engineer,KSEB - Opp.Party(s)

Tom Joseph

31 Aug 2010

ORDER

First Appeal No. 243/2004

(Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. of District )

1. M.S.Menon

571,W.No:2,Vallakunna,Kallettumkara,Thrissur

BEFORE:
	HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT
	SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA Member

PRESENT:

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMIISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No 243/2004

JUDGMENT DATED : 31.08.2010

PRESENT:-

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER

APPELLANT

M.S. Menon,

S/o Nagath Govindan Nair,

House No. 571, Ward No. 2

Vallakunnu,

Kallettumkara – 680 683

Trissur.

( Rep. by Adv. Tom Joseph)

RESPONDENTS

1. The Asst. Executive Engineer,

The KSEB Electrical Major Section – 2,

Irinjalakuda

2. The Asst. Engineer,

The KSEB Electrical Major Section – 2,

Irinjalakuda.

3. The Secretary,

The KSEB,

Vydyuthi Bhavan,

Thiruvananthapuram

( Rep. by Adv. Sri. B. Sakthidharan Nair)

JUDGMENT

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER

This appeal prefers from the order passed by he CDRF, Thrissur in O.P. No. 441/02 dated14.10.2003.

The appellant is the complainant and the opposite parties are the respondents in this appeal. This appeal prefers from the dismissal of the complaint passed by the lower Forum. This is a dispute arised between the complainant and the opposite parties in connection with an electricity connection availed by the complainant. The appellant produced this documents and marked it as Ext. P1 to P8 and marked Ext. R1 to R6 by the opposite parties. According to the complainant they are the consumers of 6614 and 6615. The supply was in the name of the mother, Radha Menon wife of Mr. Sekhar Menon . Radha S. Menon is the legal representative of the deceased consumer and was having 11.1.04 to sell the line in Survey No. 375 of Kallattinkara. There were two building constructed. It is stated that they issue only domestic connection and industrial connection is to be discontinued. But according to the respondent inspite of Ext. R1 letter giving instructions to change the ownership and take steps necessary to change the tariff the petitioner has done nothing so far. If appeals that one petitioner was seen to the respondent by the present complainant and another letter by the daughters of the deceased consumer rightly pointed out by the respondent. The legal representatives of the deceased consumer will have applied for change of ownership and the consumer No. is to be brought to the name of changed owners and the place to be taken to change the tariff for domestic purpose. From the records produced by the respondents it is seeing that no connection was given for domestic purpose so far the connection given was for industrial purpose and for lighting in connection with industrial purpose. It is seeing that the motor connected with the industrial purpose was removed and dismantled on 8.2.2002 on the request of petitioner or his daughter. Now they seeks for writing in connection with industrial purpose. Unless necessary steps are taken the respondents cannot be blamed for not changing the tariff. It is

seeing that the consumer died on 24.12.2007 . The legal heirs of the deceased consumer including the complainant have not taken any steps for this connection. If the present wiring is sufficient as the building not be re-wired for domestic purpose. But this aspect is to be considered by the first respondent. The Forum below re-wired for domestic purpose. But this aspect is to be considered by the first respondent. The Forum below show up their helplessness to inform the Commission.

In the result, the Forum below automatically disposed the complainant. But the Forum below directed the opposite parties to take speed up steps to change the ownership of tarrif of that domestic purpose. In case the petitioner of the legal representatives of the deceased consumer take place to change the ownership in his or their names and applies for changing the tariff LT IV, A to 14 domestic purpose. With this observation. The Forum disposed the complaint. The appellant/complainant approach this Commission by his appeal to set aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below and to allow the appeal.

On this day this appeal came before this Commission both appellant and respondent are absent. No representation from the

side of the bar. But we are not merely dismissing the appeal. We perused the entire evidence from the case bundle of the Forum below and find that what purpose the appellant approach the Commission without comply with initial legal steps to change the ownership and tarrif to the domestic purpose, without the petition from the legal heirs of the deceased consumer/complainant. Why the opposite parties did not take appropriate steps to change the ownership and tariff. It can be done by the Kerala State Electricity only in accordance with the rules and regulations. The Kerala State Electricity Board is a statutory establishment is running by the fund of the consumers. . They are service providers to the public and they comply with the formalities directed by the rules and regulations. It is not fair to direct the K.S.E.B to carry out the prayer of the complainant. Even now we are directing the opposite parties to take appropriate and speed up steps to change the ownership and tariff to that of domestic tariff only in case that the complainant (legal heirs of the deceased consumer) taken legal steps to change the ownership into his or to their names and applies for change the tariff from their LT IV AII to domestic purpose.

In the result this appeal is dismissed with above directions. We are not seeing any apparent error or the legality or irregularity in the view taken by the Forum. The order of the Forum below is purely legal and reasonable. The Forum below taken a interested approach towards benefit of the consumers in this order. The points of the appeal answered accordingly. Both parties are directed to suffer their own respective costs.