KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO: 464/2010
JUDGMENT DATED:03..01..2011.
PRESENT
SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Abdul Azeez.P,
Managing Partner,
Al-Ameen Crusher, : APPELLANT
Building No.93 A.B,
Melmuri.P.O, Malappuram-676 514.
(By Adv:Sri.A.Abdulkharim)
Vs.
1. The Secretary,
KSEB, Vydhudhi Bhavan,
Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The Special Officer (Revenue),
KSEB, Vydhudhi Bhavan, : RESPONDENTS
Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.
3. Assistant Executive Engineer,
KSEB, Velluvambram.
(By adv:Sri.S.Balachandran)
JUDGMENT
SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Appellant was the complainant and respondents 1 to 3 were the opposite parties in CC.266/08 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram. The complaint therein was filed claiming compensation of Rs.2.lakhs on the ground of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in disconnecting the supply of electricity to the premises of the complainant. Admittedly Ext.B1 notice was given to the complainant claiming Rs.1,01,958/- and the same was corrected as Rs.73,918/-. As per B1 letter the appellant/complainant was directed to remit the said amount on or before 23/7/2008. The complainant failed to remit the said amount on or before 23/7/08. Admittedly, the complainant remitted the amount by way of DD on 30/7/2008 and the same was encashed on 1/8/2008. But the 3rd opposite party, Assistant Executive Engineer, KSEB, Velluvambram disconnected the supply to the premises of the complainant on 22/8/2008 and on getting intimation about remittance of the amount the supply was restored on 25/8/2008. It is the case of the complainant that he could not run his crusher unit because of the disconnection of supply of electricity on 22/8/2008. Thereby the complainant claimed compensation of Rs.2.lakhs.
2. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. They took the stand that the complainant failed to remit the amount within the stipulated time and that the remittance was effected by demand draft on 30/7/2008 without notice to the 3rd opposite party. Thus, the disconnection of the supply of electricity was effected without noticing the remittance made on 30/7/2008 by way of bank’s demand draft. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Before the Forum below Exts.A1 to A8 and B1 to B3 documents were marked from the side of the parties to the complaint in CC.266/08. No oral evidence was adduced from either side. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below dismissed the complaint in CC.266/08 vide impugned order dated:7/7/2010. The case of the complainant regarding deficiency of service was not accepted by the Forum below. It is against the said order the present appeal is preferred.
4. We heard both sides. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He much relied on A1 disconnection notice dated:30/7/2008 and remittance of the amount evidenced by A6 letter dated:20/9/2008 issued by Branch Manager, Malappuram Service Co-operative Bank Limited and argued for the position that the disconnection of the supply of electricity would amount to deficiency of service. On the other hand, the respondent/opposite parties much relied on B1 invoice dated:8/7/2008 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant and argued for the position that the complainant failed to remit the amount within the stipulated time and to follow the instructions contained in B1 letter dated:8/7/2008.
5. Admittedly the appellant/complainant was served with B1 letter cum invoice dated:8/7/2008. As per B1 document, the appellant/ complainant being the consumer was directed to remit the electricity charges amounting to Rs.73,918/- on or before 23/7/2008. There can be no doubt about the fact that the appellant/complainant failed to comply with the directions contained in B1 letter-invoice dated;8/7/2008. It can very safely be concluded that the appellant/complainant defaulted to pay the electricity charges within the stipulated time.
6. The appellant/complainant remitted the electricity charges of Rs.73,918/- by way of demand draft and forwarded to the 2nd opposite party, the Special Officer, Revenue, KSEB, Thiruvananthapuram. Ext.A6 letter dated:20/9/2008 would show that the aforesaid demand draft was encashed by the 2nd opposite party on 1/8/2008. A1 disconnection notice was dated:30/7/2008. It can be seen that on the basis of A1 it can be seen that after getting A1 notice the complainant remitted the amount on 1/8/2008.
7. A close reading of B1 letter cum invoice dated:8/7/2008 would make it clear that the appellant/complainant was bound to remit the electricity charges on or before 23/7/2008. It was also specified in B1 letter cum invoice that in the event of failure to pay electricity charges within the stipulated time of 23/7/2008, the electricity supply to the premises of the consumer will be disconnected without further notice. So, it was incumbent upon the appellant/complainant to remit the electricity charges within the stipulated time of 23/7/2008. The evidence on record would show that the appellant/complainant failed to remit the amount. The defaulter of electricity charges cannot be permitted to say that there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party/KSEB in disconnecting the supply of electricity. It is also to be noted that in B1letter cum invoice it was specifically instructed to give intimation to the concerned Assistant Engineer of the electrical section about remittance of the electricity charges, in order to avoid wrongful disconnection. In the present case on hand, the appellant/ complainant failed to give such intimation to the Assistant Engineer of the concerned electrical section. It is further to be noted that the appellant/complainant also failed to give any intimation to the 3rd opposite party, Assistant Executive Engineer of Velluvambram electrical section. The issuance of the intimation to the 2nd opposite party at Thiruvannathapuram would cause some delay in getting the intimation by the 3rd opposite party or the Assistant Engineer of the concerned electrical section. Thus, the appellant/complainant failed to give intimation to the 3rd opposite party or the concerned Assistant Engineer about remittance of the electricity charges on 1/8/2008 ie, after the stipulated time of 23/7/2008.
8. There can be no doubt about the fact that the respondents/opposite parties disconnected supply of electricity to the premises of the appellant/complainant on 22/8/2008. It can be treated that the said disconnection was made at the instance of the 3rd opposite party Assistant Executive Engineer, KSEB, Valluvambram without noticing the remittance of the electricity charges by the appellant/complainant on 1/8/2008. It is also to be noted that the disconnection of electricity supply restored on 25/8/2008 on getting intimation about the remittance of electricity charges on 1/8/2008. The aforesaid disconnection of supply of electricity was resulted in due to the lack of information to the 3rd opposite party. The appellant/complainant failed to give such intimation to the 3rd opposite party or the concerned Assistant Engineer of the electrical section, KSEB. Thus, the disconnection of supply of electricity to the premises of the appellant/complainant can be considered as an inadvertent omission or mistake committed by the respondents/opposite parties. It is also to be noted that the appellant/complainant was also negligent in giving intimation to the 3rd opposite party. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that in B1 letter cum invoice dated:8/7/2008 it was instructed to give such an intimation to the 3rd opposite party. But the appellant/complainant failed to comply with the aforesaid direction contained in B1 letter cum invoice dated:8/7/2008. Thus, there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant/complainant. So, the Forum below can be justified in disallowing the claim for compensation. The case of the appellant/complainant that he had given oral intimation to the 3rd respondent/opposite party regarding remittance of the electricity charges cannot be believed or accepted without any convincing evidence. It can only be inferred that the 3rd opposite party (3rd respondent) restored the supply of electricity connection as and when he got intimation about the remittance of electricity charges by the appellant/complainant. Thus, in all respects the impugned order passed by the Forum below is to be confirmed. Hence we do so.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order dated:7/7/2010 passed by the CDRF, Malappuram in CC.266/08 is confirmed. As far as the present appeal is concerned, parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
VL.
