IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Thursday the 30th day of November, 2017.

Filed on 13/05/2016

Present

1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)

2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)

3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member) 

in

CC/No.168/2016

Between

   Complainant:-       Opposite party:-

Sri, Unni Jacob       1. The Executive Engineer, 

(Wife of Late Pastor M.E.Joseph) KSEB,Electrical Division

Mulamoottil House Mavelikkara.

Mavelikkara, Alappuzha.      2. The Secretary,

                                                                                    KSEB,

         Vaiduthy Bhavan

                      Thiruvananthapuram.

                     (Adv. Jayan. C .Das for opposite  Parties)

 

 

ORDER

 

SRI. ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER)

 

The complainant case in précis is as follows:- 

 The late husband of the complainant was the consumer of the opposite parties bearing consumer No.11368.  He was running a printing press, and he availed the material electric connection for the said purpose of printing business in 1991.  However in 1992, the complainant sold out the press, after requesting the opposite parties in writing to sever his energy connection and to take possession of their instruments.  In line with his request , the opposite parties cut off the supply of electricity thereof.  Thereafter to the utter shock of the complainant, the complainant received a revenue recovery notice dated 6th April 2002 issued by the opposite parties.  The notice was miserably indistinct as to the period of default and to the amount of arrears.  The complainant sustained inestimable mental agony, hardships and monetary loss.  The complainant on getting aggrieved on this approached this forum for compensation and relief.

2. On notices being served the opposite parties turned up and filed joint version.  The crux of the opposite parties contentions is that the complaint is barred by limitation.  As a matter of fact, the Revenue Recovery proceedings was initiated way back in 2002, and the instant complainant is filed even without seeking to condone the delay in filing the same.  According to the opposite parties no request pleading to dismantle the material connection had ever been put forth from the part of the complainant in 1992 and thereafter.  The energy charges pertaining to the material connection was being paid till January 1999.  Thereafter the energy charges were not being paid, and resultantly the supply of energy was served strictly in line with the rules and steps for causing recovery of the due amount was initiated.  According to the complainant herself she approached the chief minister’s complaint cell in the year 2003, and the instant complaint was filed only in 2014, the opposite parties contend.  In the legal notice issued by the complainant, it is revealed that the press was being run by one Mr. George.M.Eso, who is actually the brother of the original consumer.  The instant complaint has been filed with the sole intention to bypass the Revenue Recovery proceedings being initiated against the due amount.  The complainant has approached this Forum on suppressing material facts.  The complainant is disentitled to any relief, and the complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite parties, the opposite parties vehemently contend.

 

3. The evidence of the complainant consist of the testimony of PW1, and the documents Exbt A1 to A6 were marked.  On the side of the opposite parties proof affidavit was filed.   

 

4. Keeping in view the contentions of the parties the issue that come up before us for consideration are.

 

Whether there is deficiency of service/unfair practice on the part of the opposite parties?

 Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

 

5. The late husband of the complainant was the consumer of the opposite parties.  Concededly he was running a printing press.  In the year 1991 he availed electric connection from the opposite parties.  In 1992 he old out the printing press, and left the premises on intimating the said aspect to the opposite parties.  According to the complainant the opposite parties’ personnel dismantled the material connection and took possession of the equipments belonged to the opposite parties.  Thereafter on expiry of several years, the opposite parties initiated recovery proceedings against the complainant in the name of arrears of energy charges.  According to the opposite parties, no request or application was put forth from the part of the complainant pertaining to the material connection.  The complainant’s version of the printing press being sold was mere a humbug played as a poly to elude the recovery proceedings.  According to the opposite parties the lawyers notice issued by the complainant discloses that the printing press was being run by the brother of the complainant’s late husband after the latter left the material premise, and the energy charges were being paid until January 1999.  Bearing all these contentions of both parties in mind we meticulously examined the entire evidence available on record before us.  At the first blush itself it does appear that the complainant has surprised material particulars and approached this Forum for with committed intention to get away from the material recovery proceedings.  What is more, on going through of lawyer’s notice it is revealed that the brother of the late husband of the complainant was

running printing press subsequently, and it is he who must have been remitting energy charges till 1999.  When the circumstances stand thus, looking into the materials available before us on record, we are of the considered view that no reliance can be safely placed on the complainant’s story projected by her.  Thus on a perusal of the said material coming out on record, and analysis of the particular premise of the instant case, we are persuaded to arrive on the conclusion that the complainant is disentitled to any relief sought for.  Needless to say the complaint must fail.

 

5. In the light of what have been elaborated hereinabove, we hold that the complaint stands dismissed.

 

The complaint is disposed of accordingly.  The parties shall bear their own costs.

Pronounced in open Forum on this 30th day of November ,2017.

 

Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) : 

      Sd/-Smt. Elizabeth George (President):

Sd/-Smt. Jasmine.D.  (Member) : .                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:-

PW1 -T.J.George(Witness)

Ext.A1 - KSEB (Mvk) Leter GBI/SK/2014-15/1479

Ext.A2 - Letter Mrs. Unni Jacob Dt. 05.12.2014

Ext.A3 - Tahasildar (Mvk) Verification

Ext.A4 - Legal Adv. Notice (Jacob .T.Koshy)

Ext.A5 -KSEB Code -2014

Ext.A6 -RR B9.4439/02.

 

Evidence of the opposite parties :- Nill

 

 

 

                // True Copy //                                

       By  Order                                                                                                 

Senior Superintendent

To

         Complainant/Opposite parties.

 

Typed by:-ss/-  

Compared by:-