Kerala

Idukki

CC/10/249

V.J.Joseph - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Executive Engineer - Opp.Party(s)

21 Feb 2011

ORDER

 
Complaint Case No. CC/10/249
 
1. V.J.Joseph
Vadakkekara(H),Thokkupara.P.O Ambazhachal
Idukki
Kerala
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer
KSEB,Generation Division,Chithirapuram
Idukki
Kerala
2. The District Collector
Idukki,Painavu.P.O Kuyilimala
Idukki
Kerala
3. The Deputy Tahasildar
Taluk Office,Devikulam
Idukki
Kerala
4. The Village Offic er
Village Office Vellathooval
Idukki
Kerala
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONABLE MR. Laiju Ramakrishnan PRESIDENT
 HONABLE MRS. Sheela Jacob Member
 HONABLE MRS. Bindu Soman Member
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

 

DATE OF FILING :25.11.2010

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 21st day of February, 2011


 

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.249/2010

Between

Complainant : V.J.Joseph,

Vadkkekkara House,

Thokkupara P.O,

Ambazhachal,

Idukki District.

(By Authorised Agent)

And

Opposite Party : The Executive Engineer,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

Generation Division,

Chithirapuram – 685 563,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: C.K.Babu)

 

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

 

The complainant is a retired postal employee. While he was working in the Chithirapuram Post Office, he applied for a quarters under the KSEB with a rent of Rs.200/-, an advance of Rs.1,000/- and it was allotted to him. There was no electric supply or water supply to the said quarter. So the complainant paid Rs.25/- and applied for electric supply for the same. The wiring works for the same were done by the complainant himself. But the opposite party has demanded Rs.2,000/- for the supply of electricity without any bill. The complainant and his family never possessed the building even for one day. In the early month of 2004 itself the complainant was transferred to Udumbanchola Post Office. But the complainant was not able to surrender the quarters in writing to the opposite party. Thereafter the opposite party issued Revenue Recovery notices against the complainant for the recovery of the rent. Several times the complainant approached the opposite party, District Collector, Deputy Tahsildar(RR) and Village Officer in order to avoid the RR proceedings against the complainant. The copy of the letters issued to the opposite party requesting the same is also attached herewith. Hence the petition is filed for cancelling the Revenue Recovery Proceedings against the complainant for the recovery of the rent from him.
 

2. As per the written version filed by the opposite party, it is submitted that there is an agreement created between the Chithirapuram Sub Post Master, who is the senior officer of the complainant with the opposite party on 28.07.2003 and the quarters belongs to the opposite party as Quarter No.G-8(d) was given to the complainant for possession. The complainant paid rent and water charges upto 10/2003. After that the complainant never paid any amount to the opposite party and the possession of the quarters was continuing. So the opposite party demanded for the rent and water charges of the quarters and also requested for vacating the same through registered letter. But there was no response from the part of the complainant. Several letters were issued to the Senior officers for getting the amount through recovery proceedings. But there was no response from their part also. So on 31.01.2008 the quarters was vacated and sealed as per the order of the Deputy Chief Engineer(Estate Office) of the opposite party. So the complainant is liable to pay rent arrears and water charges of the quarters. A registered letter was issued on 29.09.2009 to the complainant stating to pay the amount without any interest or penal interest. But there was no response from the complainant. So revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against the complainant.

3. Heard. An agreement was created between the senior officer of the complainant who is the Sub Postmaster, Chithirapuram Post Office with the opposite party on 28.07.2003 and a quarter was issued to the complainant as No.G-8(d). The complainant started possession on 28.07.2003 onwards. The dispute regarding this case is based upon a lease agreement created between the complainant and the opposite party. Moreover Revenue Recovery Proceedings are initiated against the complainant. So we think that the complainant is not a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, so the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.
 

Hence the petition dismissed. The complainant can approach appropriate authority for further remedy.


 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 21st day of February, 2011
 

Sd/-

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT. BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

 

APPENDIX : Nil


 

 

 
 
[HONABLE MR. Laiju Ramakrishnan]
PRESIDENT
 
[HONABLE MRS. Sheela Jacob]
Member
 
[HONABLE MRS. Bindu Soman]
Member

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.