BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P.No. 410/2002 Filed on 25..09..2002 Dated: 31..01..2009 Complainant:
M.S. Anandavally Amma, Sandhya Bhavan, Perayam P.O., Nedumangadu – 695 562. (By Adv. S.A. Karim)
Opposite parties:
The Secretary, KSEB., Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. The Executive Engineer, KSEB., Nedumangadu The Assistant Executive Engineer, KSEB., Electrical Major Section, Palode, Nedumangadu.
(By Adv. G. Gopidas)
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 18..12..2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 22..01..2008, the Forum on 31..01..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:
The facts of the case leading to the filing of the complaint are as follows: The complainant who is the consumer of the opposite parties had agreed to supply temporary electric connection for 7 days to the newly constructed building of her daughter. Accordingly, 3rd opposite party sanctioned the same and the complainant remitted Rs.798/- for current charges and Rs.35/- for other expenses. The complainant's daughter consumed current for 7 days from 09/09/2002 to 15/09/2002. On the next day the complainant disconnected the said temporary connection. On 24/09/2002, the complainant received a notice from the 3rd opposite party demanding Rs.2,771/- stating that the complainant had consumed 3kws current for 8 days unauthorisedly in the new building or else the electric connecion will be disconnected after a period of 7 days. The complainant submits that she has not unauthorisedly supplied any unit to her daughter and nobody from the Office of the opposite parties has visited her house. Hence this complaint for withdrawing the notice along with compensation and costs.
2. The 3rd opposite party has filed version for and on behalf of the other opposite parties also contending as follows: The complainant had applied for temporary extension for 7 days with effect from 09/09/2002 and as per the provisions of law KSEB granted sanction. The complainant disconnected the said connection only on 23/09/2002 ie., after the inspection of Board authorities. The complainant has neither disconnected nor removed the temporary extension till 23//09//2002. Since the sanctioned period for temporary extension was over, it is to be considered as unauthorised temporary extension. On the basis of inspection conducted by the Sub Engineer and Asst. Engineer, the complainant was issued with a notice for Rs.2,771/- for 8 days unauthorised temporary extension. The allegation that the complainant has not supplied any unit unauthorisedly to her daughter is false. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought and hence prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. The complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Exts. P1 to P6 were marked. Opposite parties had no evidence. 4. On the contention raised, the following issues are raised for consideration:
Whether the complainant has unauthorisedly supplied electric energy to her daughter's building? Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? Reliefs and Costs?
5. Points (i) to (iii): There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant had applied for temporary connection for 7 days and the same was sanctioned also. The dispute is with regard to the period of usage of the same. According to the complainant she had remitted the amount and sanction was granted for 7 days and accordingly the complainant's daughter consumed current for 7 days from 09/09/2002 to 15/09/2002 and the next day ie., on 16/09/2002 the complainant disconnected the temporary connection given to her daughter. But according to the contention of the opposite parties in their version, it is contended that the complainant has neither disconnected nor removed the temporary extension till 23/09/2002. On 23/09/2002 a site inspection was conducted by the Sub Engineer and Asst. Engineer and it was found that the complainant has neither disconnected nor removed the temporary extension and the same was disconnected by the complainant only after the said site inspection and since the sanctioned period for temporary extension was over it was considered as unauthorised temporary extension and a notice for Rs. 2,771/- for 8 days was issued for the same. At this juncture, the aspect to be looked into is whether the complainant has unauthorisedly used the temporary extension. From the pleadings in the complaint and the contention in the version it is not evident with regard to the fact that who had drawn the temporary line, whether it was connected by the complainant herself or anybody from the opposite parties had connected the same. Admittedly, sanction has been granted but who is vested with the duty of disconnecting the line has not been clarified. Moreover, the main contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant had unauthorisedly used the said temporary connection for 8 days and the same was found on site inspection. But there is no evidence before us for supporting the same. The contention of the opposite parties has not been corrobotated with any evidence. No mahasar or site inspection report has been produced by the opposite parties. But the complainant has filed affidavit in support of her allegations and she has not been cross examined and her sworn statement stands unchallenged.
6. In the above circumstance, taking the facts and evidence into consideration it is found that the complainant has succeeded in establishing her complaint and the allegations in the complaint stands proved. Hence we have no difficulty in allowing the complaint as there is no evidence for the alleged unauthorised temporary extension taken by the complainant. The complainant is found entitled for refund of Rs.900/- paid to the opposite parties on 07/10/2002 as per the interim order of this Forum which shall be adjusted by the opposite parties in the future bills of the complainant. Complainant is found not entitled to pay the amount as per Ext.P3 bill.
In the result, Ext.P3 bill is quashed. The opposite parties are directed to adjust Rs. 900/- (Rupees Nine hundred only) paid by the complainant in her future bills. There is no order as to costs and compensation.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 31st day of January, 2009.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G.SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
ad. BEENA KUMARI. A, MEMBER. O.P.No. 410/2002
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness: NIL
II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Photocopy of bill No.15 dated 09/09/2002 P2 : " No.305 dated 11/09/2002 P3 : " notice DB-3 G/2002-03/40 dated 23/4/2002 of Con.No.7214 P4 : Interim receipt No.81 dated 03/10/2002 for Rs.900 P5 : Receipt of bill No.E-20636 dated 13/08/2002 P6 : Receipt of bill No.G-287437 dated 11/10/2002 for Rs.322/-.
III. Opposite parties' witness: NIL
IV. Opposite parties' documents: NIL
PRESIDENT
ad.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P.No. 410/2002 Filed on 25..09..2002 Dated: 31..01..2009 Complainant:
M.S. Anandavally Amma, Sandhya Bhavan, Perayam P.O., Nedumangadu – 695 562. (By Adv. S.A. Karim)
Opposite parties:
The Secretary, KSEB., Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. The Executive Engineer, KSEB., Nedumangadu The Assistant Executive Engineer, KSEB., Electrical Major Section, Palode, Nedumangadu.
(By Adv. G. Gopidas)
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 18..12..2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 22..01..2008, the Forum on 31..01..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:
The facts of the case leading to the filing of the complaint are as follows: The complainant who is the consumer of the opposite parties had agreed to supply temporary electric connection for 7 days to the newly constructed building of her daughter. Accordingly, 3rd opposite party sanctioned the same and the complainant remitted Rs.798/- for current charges and Rs.35/- for other expenses. The complainant's daughter consumed current for 7 days from 09/09/2002 to 15/09/2002. On the next day the complainant disconnected the said temporary connection. On 24/09/2002, the complainant received a notice from the 3rd opposite party demanding Rs.2,771/- stating that the complainant had consumed 3kws current for 8 days unauthorisedly in the new building or else the electric connecion will be disconnected after a period of 7 days. The complainant submits that she has not unauthorisedly supplied any unit to her daughter and nobody from the Office of the opposite parties has visited her house. Hence this complaint for withdrawing the notice along with compensation and costs.
2. The 3rd opposite party has filed version for and on behalf of the other opposite parties also contending as follows: The complainant had applied for temporary extension for 7 days with effect from 09/09/2002 and as per the provisions of law KSEB granted sanction. The complainant disconnected the said connection only on 23/09/2002 ie., after the inspection of Board authorities. The complainant has neither disconnected nor removed the temporary extension till 23//09//2002. Since the sanctioned period for temporary extension was over, it is to be considered as unauthorised temporary extension. On the basis of inspection conducted by the Sub Engineer and Asst. Engineer, the complainant was issued with a notice for Rs.2,771/- for 8 days unauthorised temporary extension. The allegation that the complainant has not supplied any unit unauthorisedly to her daughter is false. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought and hence prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. The complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Exts. P1 to P6 were marked. Opposite parties had no evidence. 4. On the contention raised, the following issues are raised for consideration:
Whether the complainant has unauthorisedly supplied electric energy to her daughter's building? Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? Reliefs and Costs?
5. Points (i) to (iii): There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant had applied for temporary connection for 7 days and the same was sanctioned also. The dispute is with regard to the period of usage of the same. According to the complainant she had remitted the amount and sanction was granted for 7 days and accordingly the complainant's daughter consumed current for 7 days from 09/09/2002 to 15/09/2002 and the next day ie., on 16/09/2002 the complainant disconnected the temporary connection given to her daughter. But according to the contention of the opposite parties in their version, it is contended that the complainant has neither disconnected nor removed the temporary extension till 23/09/2002. On 23/09/2002 a site inspection was conducted by the Sub Engineer and Asst. Engineer and it was found that the complainant has neither disconnected nor removed the temporary extension and the same was disconnected by the complainant only after the said site inspection and since the sanctioned period for temporary extension was over it was considered as unauthorised temporary extension and a notice for Rs. 2,771/- for 8 days was issued for the same. At this juncture, the aspect to be looked into is whether the complainant has unauthorisedly used the temporary extension. From the pleadings in the complaint and the contention in the version it is not evident with regard to the fact that who had drawn the temporary line, whether it was connected by the complainant herself or anybody from the opposite parties had connected the same. Admittedly, sanction has been granted but who is vested with the duty of disconnecting the line has not been clarified. Moreover, the main contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant had unauthorisedly used the said temporary connection for 8 days and the same was found on site inspection. But there is no evidence before us for supporting the same. The contention of the opposite parties has not been corrobotated with any evidence. No mahasar or site inspection report has been produced by the opposite parties. But the complainant has filed affidavit in support of her allegations and she has not been cross examined and her sworn statement stands unchallenged.
6. In the above circumstance, taking the facts and evidence into consideration it is found that the complainant has succeeded in establishing her complaint and the allegations in the complaint stands proved. Hence we have no difficulty in allowing the complaint as there is no evidence for the alleged unauthorised temporary extension taken by the complainant. The complainant is found entitled for refund of Rs.900/- paid to the opposite parties on 07/10/2002 as per the interim order of this Forum which shall be adjusted by the opposite parties in the future bills of the complainant. Complainant is found not entitled to pay the amount as per Ext.P3 bill.
In the result, Ext.P3 bill is quashed. The opposite parties are directed to adjust Rs. 900/- (Rupees Nine hundred only) paid by the complainant in her future bills. There is no order as to costs and compensation.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 31st day of January, 2009.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G.SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
ad. BEENA KUMARI. A, MEMBER. O.P.No. 410/2002
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness: NIL
II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Photocopy of bill No.15 dated 09/09/2002 P2 : " No.305 dated 11/09/2002 P3 : " notice DB-3 G/2002-03/40 dated 23/4/2002 of Con.No.7214 P4 : Interim receipt No.81 dated 03/10/2002 for Rs.900 P5 : Receipt of bill No.E-20636 dated 13/08/2002 P6 : Receipt of bill No.G-287437 dated 11/10/2002 for Rs.322/-.
III. Opposite parties' witness: NIL
IV. Opposite parties' documents: NIL
PRESIDENT
ad.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P.No. 410/2002 Filed on 25..09..2002 Dated: 31..01..2009 Complainant:
M.S. Anandavally Amma, Sandhya Bhavan, Perayam P.O., Nedumangadu – 695 562. (By Adv. S.A. Karim)
Opposite parties:
The Secretary, KSEB., Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. The Executive Engineer, KSEB., Nedumangadu The Assistant Executive Engineer, KSEB., Electrical Major Section, Palode, Nedumangadu.
(By Adv. G. Gopidas)
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 18..12..2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 22..01..2008, the Forum on 31..01..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:
The facts of the case leading to the filing of the complaint are as follows: The complainant who is the consumer of the opposite parties had agreed to supply temporary electric connection for 7 days to the newly constructed building of her daughter. Accordingly, 3rd opposite party sanctioned the same and the complainant remitted Rs.798/- for current charges and Rs.35/- for other expenses. The complainant's daughter consumed current for 7 days from 09/09/2002 to 15/09/2002. On the next day the complainant disconnected the said temporary connection. On 24/09/2002, the complainant received a notice from the 3rd opposite party demanding Rs.2,771/- stating that the complainant had consumed 3kws current for 8 days unauthorisedly in the new building or else the electric connecion will be disconnected after a period of 7 days. The complainant submits that she has not unauthorisedly supplied any unit to her daughter and nobody from the Office of the opposite parties has visited her house. Hence this complaint for withdrawing the notice along with compensation and costs.
2. The 3rd opposite party has filed version for and on behalf of the other opposite parties also contending as follows: The complainant had applied for temporary extension for 7 days with effect from 09/09/2002 and as per the provisions of law KSEB granted sanction. The complainant disconnected the said connection only on 23/09/2002 ie., after the inspection of Board authorities. The complainant has neither disconnected nor removed the temporary extension till 23//09//2002. Since the sanctioned period for temporary extension was over, it is to be considered as unauthorised temporary extension. On the basis of inspection conducted by the Sub Engineer and Asst. Engineer, the complainant was issued with a notice for Rs.2,771/- for 8 days unauthorised temporary extension. The allegation that the complainant has not supplied any unit unauthorisedly to her daughter is false. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought and hence prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. The complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Exts. P1 to P6 were marked. Opposite parties had no evidence. 4. On the contention raised, the following issues are raised for consideration:
Whether the complainant has unauthorisedly supplied electric energy to her daughter's building? Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? Reliefs and Costs?
5. Points (i) to (iii): There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant had applied for temporary connection for 7 days and the same was sanctioned also. The dispute is with regard to the period of usage of the same. According to the complainant she had remitted the amount and sanction was granted for 7 days and accordingly the complainant's daughter consumed current for 7 days from 09/09/2002 to 15/09/2002 and the next day ie., on 16/09/2002 the complainant disconnected the temporary connection given to her daughter. But according to the contention of the opposite parties in their version, it is contended that the complainant has neither disconnected nor removed the temporary extension till 23/09/2002. On 23/09/2002 a site inspection was conducted by the Sub Engineer and Asst. Engineer and it was found that the complainant has neither disconnected nor removed the temporary extension and the same was disconnected by the complainant only after the said site inspection and since the sanctioned period for temporary extension was over it was considered as unauthorised temporary extension and a notice for Rs. 2,771/- for 8 days was issued for the same. At this juncture, the aspect to be looked into is whether the complainant has unauthorisedly used the temporary extension. From the pleadings in the complaint and the contention in the version it is not evident with regard to the fact that who had drawn the temporary line, whether it was connected by the complainant herself or anybody from the opposite parties had connected the same. Admittedly, sanction has been granted but who is vested with the duty of disconnecting the line has not been clarified. Moreover, the main contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant had unauthorisedly used the said temporary connection for 8 days and the same was found on site inspection. But there is no evidence before us for supporting the same. The contention of the opposite parties has not been corrobotated with any evidence. No mahasar or site inspection report has been produced by the opposite parties. But the complainant has filed affidavit in support of her allegations and she has not been cross examined and her sworn statement stands unchallenged.
6. In the above circumstance, taking the facts and evidence into consideration it is found that the complainant has succeeded in establishing her complaint and the allegations in the complaint stands proved. Hence we have no difficulty in allowing the complaint as there is no evidence for the alleged unauthorised temporary extension taken by the complainant. The complainant is found entitled for refund of Rs.900/- paid to the opposite parties on 07/10/2002 as per the interim order of this Forum which shall be adjusted by the opposite parties in the future bills of the complainant. Complainant is found not entitled to pay the amount as per Ext.P3 bill.
In the result, Ext.P3 bill is quashed. The opposite parties are directed to adjust Rs. 900/- (Rupees Nine hundred only) paid by the complainant in her future bills. There is no order as to costs and compensation.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 31st day of January, 2009.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G.SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
ad. BEENA KUMARI. A, MEMBER. O.P.No. 410/2002
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness: NIL
II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Photocopy of bill No.15 dated 09/09/2002 P2 : " No.305 dated 11/09/2002 P3 : " notice DB-3 G/2002-03/40 dated 23/4/2002 of Con.No.7214 P4 : Interim receipt No.81 dated 03/10/2002 for Rs.900 P5 : Receipt of bill No.E-20636 dated 13/08/2002 P6 : Receipt of bill No.G-287437 dated 11/10/2002 for Rs.322/-.
III. Opposite parties' witness: NIL
IV. Opposite parties' documents: NIL
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
