Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

308/2002

Sajeev G - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Secretary - Opp.Party(s)

Victor Dsilva

16 Feb 2009

ORDER


Thiruvananthapuram
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,Vazhuthacaud
consumer case(CC) No. 308/2002

Sajeev G 		...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

The Secretary
Asst. Engr
Asst. Ex. Engr
Sub Engr
Supdt		 ...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Smt. Beena Kumari. A 2. Smt. S.K.Sreela 3. Sri G. Sivaprasad

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

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.

 


 

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. 308/2002 Filed on 18/7/2002

Dated: 16..02..2009

Complainant:

Sajeev. G, Proprietor, Bhagos Engineering, Karuvila Veedu, Kulathoor – P.O., Attipra Village, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. Victor D'Silva)

Opposite parties:

          1. Secretary, KSEB, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom Palace – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.

          2. Sasikumaran Nair, Sub-Engineer, KSEB, Electrical Section, Kulathoor, Kulathoor P.O., (via) Kazhakkuttom.

          3. Assistant Engineer, KSEB, Electrical Section, Kulathoor, Kulathoor – P.O. (via) Kazhakkuttom.

          4. Assistant Exe. Engineer, KSEB, Electrical Major Section, Kazhakkuttom, Kazhakkuttom – P.O.

          5. Superintendent, KSEB, Electrical Section, Kulathoor, Kulathoor P.O., Kazhakkuttom.

(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 08..10..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 31..01..2009, the Forum on 16..02..2009 delivered the following:

ORDER


 

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:


 

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that the complainant had applied for electric connection to run a welding Engineering Workshop and for getting work order from the opposite parties that due to delay in getting work order and electric connection complainant had incurred huge loss and that complainant had deposited Rs.2,010/- on the basis of 5995 watts. Thereafter opposite parties reduced the watts and collected excess current charge. Hence this complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay compensation to restore the electric connection from 3495 watts to 5995 watts and also to refund excess amount collected by the opposite parties from the complainant.


 

2. Opposite parties filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that in the application the complainant did not mention the quantum of power required, that the complainant produced the copy of SSI registration certificate wherein the load mentioned is 5HP (4kw), and that on the basis of application for power allocation, the work order was issued. Complainant submitted the installation completion report with a connected load of 3495 watts. On receiving the installation completion report complainant remitted Rs. 2,000/- as cash deposit and Rs.10/- as inspection fee and allotted consumer No.7881 under industrial tariff LT IV. The allegation that the power allotted for 5995 watts is false, the allotted power is 4kw only. The complainant never applied for electric connection till 01/02/2002. The electric supply and power allocation was made on the basis of SSI certificate and work completion certificate. On inspection it was found that a 5 kw welding set was seen installed and functioning at the premises unauthorisedly. The complainant was directed to dismantle the additional connected load. The said act of the complainant is against the agreement executed with opposite parties. Complainant was advised to produce a fresh completion report with actual connected load as per SSI certificate, since prior completion report has correction. Subsequently the complainant produced a fresh completion report with connected load of 3495 watts. For an unauthorised additional load of 2kw, the complainant billed at penal rates. The complainant was charged as per industrial tariff LT IV for 4kw and at penal rates for unauthorised additional load of 2kw. The bill was issued as per the provisions of law. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.


 

3. The points that arises for consideration are:

        1. Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

        2. Whether opposite parties had collected excess amount from the complainant?

           

        3. Reliefs and costs?


 

4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and marked Exts.P1 to P9. In rebuttal, 4th opposite party has filed affidavit. Opposite parties furnished two documents dated 26.03..2002.


 

5. It has been the case of the complainant, that complainant had applied for electric connection to run a welding Engineering workshop, that the said workshop was not run due to delay in sanctioning the power connection and reduction of connected load to 3495 watts by opposite parties, on account of which complainant had incurred a huge loss and that opposite parties had collected excess amount of Rs.266/- from the complainant. Ext.P1 is the copy of SSI Registration Scheme. As per Ext.P1, the date of issue of the provisional registration for Tiny unit is 20/11/1999. Submission by the complainant is that application for work order was given 1st opposite party on 5/1/2001. Ext.P3 series are letters issued by opposite parties to the complainant. As per Ext P3 series, the 1st letter is seen issued on 16/1/2001, and accordingly, complainant was informed that electric connection to the said workshop could be given only after the completion of the building, wiring and errection of machine and after execution of agreement. As per the second letter dated 7/3/2002 (in Ext.P3 series), complainant was informed, on inspection of the said site by opposite parties, of some defects and on being informed of curing of the said defects in written letter to opposite parties, complainant could deposit the security amount. In the third letter dated 7/5/2002 it is mentioned that complainant without the consent of the opposite parties used a connected load to 5 KVA Are welding set by violating the agreement executed by the complainant and opposite parties and that on receipt of the said notice complainant was directed to disconnect the connected load, failing which complainant would succumb to legal action. Submission by the complainant is that pursuant to Ext.P3 series (letters dated 7/3/2002 and 7/5/2002) complainant had cured the defects and informed the same to opposite parties. There is no material on record to show the date of the said information to opposite parties. As per Ext.P7 receipts complainant had remitted Rs.2,010/- under LT IV on 15/3/2002 pursuant to the letter dated 13/3/2002 issued by opposite parties to the complainant. As per the letter dated 13/3/2002 the connected load calculated was for 5995w. On a perusal of the said letter dated 13/3/2002 the reference is about the application for connection dated 1/3/2002. Submission by the opposite parties is that as per Ext.P1 SSI registration the load mentioned is 5HP (4kw), that complainant had applied for power allocation only on 01/02/2002, and work order was issued on 9/2/2002 and complainant submitted the installation completion report with connected load of 3495w. Opposite parties furnished order dated 26/3/2002 and estimate prepared by the 4th opposite party, which are on the records. As per estimate prepared by opposite parties, tariff is LT IV, phases 3 phase, connected load 3495w, total estimate is for Rs.4,957/- and sanction is seen accorded to the said estimate on 26/3/2002. As per Ext.P7 complainant was directed to remit Rs.2,010/- on the basis of connected 5995 w on or before 15/3/2002 and complainant remitted the said amount on 15/3/2002 as per bills No.235 dated 15/3/2002 for Rs.10/- on account of IF and No.199 dated 15/3/2002 for Rs.2,000/- on account of CD. It is pertinent to note that as per order dated 26/3/2002 estimate amount of Rs.4,957/- was on the basis of 3495 w. It is urged by the opposite parties that as per SSI certificate (Ext.P1) produced the required load mentioned is 5HP while the completion report produced is for 5995 watts, that complainant was directed to produce a fresh completion report as per load mentioned in SSI certificate and accordingly complainant had produced fresh completion report for 3495 watts. As per Ext.P8 & P9 complainant remitted Rs.1,094/- which includes connected load 4kw and unauthorised connection load 2kw. Though the connected load mentioned in Ext.P1 by opposite parties was 5995 w and on the basis of which deposit was made by the complainant on 15/2/2002, which was against the provisional registration (Ext.P1) under SSI Registration Scheme. Evidently, as per Ext.P1 there is 5HP and 4kw. While as per order dated 26/3/2002 sanction is accorded to an estimate amounts to Rs.4,957/- (which is for 3495 w). Further the said order is made within two weeks from the date of security deposit by the complainant. This would mean that opposite party had made estimate on inspection of the welding unit within a reasonable time. On going through the affidavit, Exts.P1 to P7 and the order dated 26/3/2002 we cannot attribute any deficiency on the part of opposite parties. Opposite parties have acted in accordance with the provisional Registration under SSI Registration Scheme. Complainant never succeeded in establishing his case that opposite parties had collected excess amount from him. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that complaint has no merit at all which deserves to be dismissed.


 

In the result, complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.


 

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, this the 16th day of February, 2009.


 


 


 

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.

 

BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER


 

 


 

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER


 


 

ad.


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

O.P.No.308/2002


 

APPENDIX

  1. Complainant's witness:

PW1 : Sajeev


 

  1. Complainant's documents:


 

P1 : Photocopy of provisional registration published by Kerala Bureau of Industrial Promotion

P2 : Copy of letter dated 7/8/2001 to opp. Parties.

P2(a) " dated 31/8/2001 to opp. Parties

P2(b) " dated 21/9/2001 "

P2(c) " dated 17/10/2001 "

P2(d) " dated 5/11/2001 to "

P2(e) " dated 27/11/2001 to "

P2(f) " dated 18/12/2001 to "

P3 : Copy of letter dated 16/1/2001 issued to the complainant

P3(a) Copy of letter dated 7/3/2002 issued "

P3(b) Copy of letter dated 7/5/2002 "

P4 : Copy of credit bill No.4940 dated 1/8/2001 for Rs.90,465/-

P5 : Copy of letter dated 27/12/2001 to Dis. Collector, Tvpm with acknowledgement slip.

P6 : Copy of application for Electricity connection with Form No.S-58682

P7 : Copy of Interim Receipt No.235 dated 15/3/2002 and No.199 dated 15/2/2002

P8 : Copy of Demand Notice with due date – 12/6/2002

P9 : Copy of receipt No.BO-70400 dated 20/6/2002


 

  1. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

  2. 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. 308/2002 Filed on 18/7/2002

Dated: 16..02..2009

Complainant:

Sajeev. G, Proprietor, Bhagos Engineering, Karuvila Veedu, Kulathoor – P.O., Attipra Village, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. Victor D'Silva)

Opposite parties:

          1. Secretary, KSEB, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom Palace – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.

          2. Sasikumaran Nair, Sub-Engineer, KSEB, Electrical Section, Kulathoor, Kulathoor P.O., (via) Kazhakkuttom.

          3. Assistant Engineer, KSEB, Electrical Section, Kulathoor, Kulathoor – P.O. (via) Kazhakkuttom.

          4. Assistant Exe. Engineer, KSEB, Electrical Major Section, Kazhakkuttom, Kazhakkuttom – P.O.

          5. Superintendent, KSEB, Electrical Section, Kulathoor, Kulathoor P.O., Kazhakkuttom.

(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 08..10..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 31..01..2009, the Forum on 16..02..2009 delivered the following:

ORDER


 

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:


 

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that the complainant had applied for electric connection to run a welding Engineering Workshop and for getting work order from the opposite parties that due to delay in getting work order and electric connection complainant had incurred huge loss and that complainant had deposited Rs.2,010/- on the basis of 5995 watts. Thereafter opposite parties reduced the watts and collected excess current charge. Hence this complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay compensation to restore the electric connection from 3495 watts to 5995 watts and also to refund excess amount collected by the opposite parties from the complainant.


 

2. Opposite parties filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that in the application the complainant did not mention the quantum of power required, that the complainant produced the copy of SSI registration certificate wherein the load mentioned is 5HP (4kw), and that on the basis of application for power allocation, the work order was issued. Complainant submitted the installation completion report with a connected load of 3495 watts. On receiving the installation completion report complainant remitted Rs. 2,000/- as cash deposit and Rs.10/- as inspection fee and allotted consumer No.7881 under industrial tariff LT IV. The allegation that the power allotted for 5995 watts is false, the allotted power is 4kw only. The complainant never applied for electric connection till 01/02/2002. The electric supply and power allocation was made on the basis of SSI certificate and work completion certificate. On inspection it was found that a 5 kw welding set was seen installed and functioning at the premises unauthorisedly. The complainant was directed to dismantle the additional connected load. The said act of the complainant is against the agreement executed with opposite parties. Complainant was advised to produce a fresh completion report with actual connected load as per SSI certificate, since prior completion report has correction. Subsequently the complainant produced a fresh completion report with connected load of 3495 watts. For an unauthorised additional load of 2kw, the complainant billed at penal rates. The complainant was charged as per industrial tariff LT IV for 4kw and at penal rates for unauthorised additional load of 2kw. The bill was issued as per the provisions of law. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.


 

3. The points that arises for consideration are:

        1. Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

        2. Whether opposite parties had collected excess amount from the complainant?

           

        3. Reliefs and costs?


 

4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and marked Exts.P1 to P9. In rebuttal, 4th opposite party has filed affidavit. Opposite parties furnished two documents dated 26.03..2002.


 

5. It has been the case of the complainant, that complainant had applied for electric connection to run a welding Engineering workshop, that the said workshop was not run due to delay in sanctioning the power connection and reduction of connected load to 3495 watts by opposite parties, on account of which complainant had incurred a huge loss and that opposite parties had collected excess amount of Rs.266/- from the complainant. Ext.P1 is the copy of SSI Registration Scheme. As per Ext.P1, the date of issue of the provisional registration for Tiny unit is 20/11/1999. Submission by the complainant is that application for work order was given 1st opposite party on 5/1/2001. Ext.P3 series are letters issued by opposite parties to the complainant. As per Ext P3 series, the 1st letter is seen issued on 16/1/2001, and accordingly, complainant was informed that electric connection to the said workshop could be given only after the completion of the building, wiring and errection of machine and after execution of agreement. As per the second letter dated 7/3/2002 (in Ext.P3 series), complainant was informed, on inspection of the said site by opposite parties, of some defects and on being informed of curing of the said defects in written letter to opposite parties, complainant could deposit the security amount. In the third letter dated 7/5/2002 it is mentioned that complainant without the consent of the opposite parties used a connected load to 5 KVA Are welding set by violating the agreement executed by the complainant and opposite parties and that on receipt of the said notice complainant was directed to disconnect the connected load, failing which complainant would succumb to legal action. Submission by the complainant is that pursuant to Ext.P3 series (letters dated 7/3/2002 and 7/5/2002) complainant had cured the defects and informed the same to opposite parties. There is no material on record to show the date of the said information to opposite parties. As per Ext.P7 receipts complainant had remitted Rs.2,010/- under LT IV on 15/3/2002 pursuant to the letter dated 13/3/2002 issued by opposite parties to the complainant. As per the letter dated 13/3/2002 the connected load calculated was for 5995w. On a perusal of the said letter dated 13/3/2002 the reference is about the application for connection dated 1/3/2002. Submission by the opposite parties is that as per Ext.P1 SSI registration the load mentioned is 5HP (4kw), that complainant had applied for power allocation only on 01/02/2002, and work order was issued on 9/2/2002 and complainant submitted the installation completion report with connected load of 3495w. Opposite parties furnished order dated 26/3/2002 and estimate prepared by the 4th opposite party, which are on the records. As per estimate prepared by opposite parties, tariff is LT IV, phases 3 phase, connected load 3495w, total estimate is for Rs.4,957/- and sanction is seen accorded to the said estimate on 26/3/2002. As per Ext.P7 complainant was directed to remit Rs.2,010/- on the basis of connected 5995 w on or before 15/3/2002 and complainant remitted the said amount on 15/3/2002 as per bills No.235 dated 15/3/2002 for Rs.10/- on account of IF and No.199 dated 15/3/2002 for Rs.2,000/- on account of CD. It is pertinent to note that as per order dated 26/3/2002 estimate amount of Rs.4,957/- was on the basis of 3495 w. It is urged by the opposite parties that as per SSI certificate (Ext.P1) produced the required load mentioned is 5HP while the completion report produced is for 5995 watts, that complainant was directed to produce a fresh completion report as per load mentioned in SSI certificate and accordingly complainant had produced fresh completion report for 3495 watts. As per Ext.P8 & P9 complainant remitted Rs.1,094/- which includes connected load 4kw and unauthorised connection load 2kw. Though the connected load mentioned in Ext.P1 by opposite parties was 5995 w and on the basis of which deposit was made by the complainant on 15/2/2002, which was against the provisional registration (Ext.P1) under SSI Registration Scheme. Evidently, as per Ext.P1 there is 5HP and 4kw. While as per order dated 26/3/2002 sanction is accorded to an estimate amounts to Rs.4,957/- (which is for 3495 w). Further the said order is made within two weeks from the date of security deposit by the complainant. This would mean that opposite party had made estimate on inspection of the welding unit within a reasonable time. On going through the affidavit, Exts.P1 to P7 and the order dated 26/3/2002 we cannot attribute any deficiency on the part of opposite parties. Opposite parties have acted in accordance with the provisional Registration under SSI Registration Scheme. Complainant never succeeded in establishing his case that opposite parties had collected excess amount from him. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that complaint has no merit at all which deserves to be dismissed.


 

In the result, complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.


 

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, this the 16th day of February, 2009.


 


 


 

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.

 

BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER


 

 


 

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER


 


 

ad.


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

O.P.No.308/2002


 

APPENDIX

  1. Complainant's witness:

PW1 : Sajeev


 

  1. Complainant's documents:


 

P1 : Photocopy of provisional registration published by Kerala Bureau of Industrial Promotion

P2 : Copy of letter dated 7/8/2001 to opp. Parties.

P2(a) " dated 31/8/2001 to opp. Parties

P2(b) " dated 21/9/2001 "

P2(c) " dated 17/10/2001 "

P2(d) " dated 5/11/2001 to "

P2(e) " dated 27/11/2001 to "

P2(f) " dated 18/12/2001 to "

P3 : Copy of letter dated 16/1/2001 issued to the complainant

P3(a) Copy of letter dated 7/3/2002 issued "

P3(b) Copy of letter dated 7/5/2002 "

P4 : Copy of credit bill No.4940 dated 1/8/2001 for Rs.90,465/-

P5 : Copy of letter dated 27/12/2001 to Dis. Collector, Tvpm with acknowledgement slip.

P6 : Copy of application for Electricity connection with Form No.S-58682

P7 : Copy of Interim Receipt No.235 dated 15/3/2002 and No.199 dated 15/2/2002

P8 : Copy of Demand Notice with due date – 12/6/2002

P9 : Copy of receipt No.BO-70400 dated 20/6/2002


 

  1. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

  2. Opposite parties' documents : NIL


 

PRESIDENT

 




......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad