Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/181

SECRETARY - Complainant(s)

Versus

THOMSON - Opp.Party(s)

B. SAKTHIDARAN NAIR

28 Mar 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO. 181/14

JUDGMENT DATED:28/03/2016

(Appeal filed against the order in OP No.35/2005 on the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram, order dated : 30.11.2013)

 

PRESENT

 

SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS     : MEMBER

 

APPELLANTS

 

1. Kerala State Electricity Board,

          R/by its Secretary,

          Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom,

          Thiruvananthapuram.

 

2. Assistant Executive Engineer,

          Electrical Sub Division, Parassala.

 

3. Assistant Engineer,

          Electrical Section, Parassala.

 

          (By Adv: Sri. B.Sakthidharan Nair)

 

                                                                                      Vs.

 

RESPONDENTS

 

1. Thomson,

          Rose Villa Kottathanam,

          Attupuram, Uchakkada. P.O.,

          Neyyattinkara,

          Thiruvananthapuram – 695506.

 

         

 

2. Agricultural Officer,

          Krishi Bhavan, Kulathoor,

          Uchakkada. P.O.,

          Thiruvananthapruam – 695500.

 

          (By Adv: Sri.K.P. Ranadive for R1)

 

JUDGMENT

         

SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          Appellants are the opposite parties in OP No.35/05 in the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram.  Respondent / complainant was a consumer of electricity supplied by the opposite parties.   It is alleged in the complaint that initially it was a single phase electricity connection.   Subsequently 3 phase connection was obtained for agricultural purpose.  The agricultural officer concerned prepared an estimate of Rs.20,000/- for giving connection.  The opposite parties agreed to draw line through the single phase line already existing and accordingly disconnected the single phase connection on 18/3/2000.  On the basis of the 3 phase connection complainant had remitted the electricity charges till December, 2000.  After that the complainant did not remit electricity charges as he is entitled to the benefits under minimum guarantee scheme.  He received notice dated 31/12/2004 from the 3^rd opposite party directing him to remit the arrears on or before 25/01/2005,  failing which disconnection of electricity and revenue recovery proceedings to realise Rs.56,524/- were threatened.  The direction of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant sought to cancel the notice dated 31.12.2004. 

          2.      The opposite parties contented that the electricity connection for agricultural purpose was a 3 phase connection given on 18/3/2000.   Domestic connection was existing from 16/1/1972.  There was dispute regarding conversion of single phase connection to 3 phase and hence with the consent of the complainant agricultural connection was given to the complainant by drawing line through public pathway.  The said connection was given on the strength of the certificate issued by the agricultural officer.  Complainant had remitted current charges for three phase connection till December, 2000.  Since complainant is a beneficiary of minimum guarantee scheme he was given subsidy of Rs.20,000/-.  After adjusting the said subsidy against total estimate of Rs.37,633/-,  the complainant agreed to meet the balance administrative expenses of Rs.17,673/-.    On the basis of the above agreement the electricity connection was given to him.  The opposite parties had given all the benefits,   the consumer was entitled to as per law.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

          3.      The consumer Forum considered the proof affidavits submitted by the complainant and 2^nd opposite party and Exts.P1 to P9, Exts. D1 to D14 and Ext.C1 marked in evidence, and passed the impugned order directing cancellation of Ext.P5 notice dated 31.12.04.  The correctness of the said order is challenged in this appeal. 

          4.      It is not disputed that the complainant had domestic electricity connection for the past more than 14 years. While so he wanted the single phase connection to be converted into a 3 phase agricultural connection.  It appears that dispute was raised for converting the single phase connection to 3 phase connection through the existing line.  Hence revised estimate was prepared and the 3 phase connection was given through a public pathway.   The definite case of the opposite parties is that eligible subsidy was given to the complainant and he never paid the balance amount which he agreed to pay and that necessitated Ext. P5 notice.  The relief sought is cancellation of the notice of demand. 

          5.      It may be mentioned at once that the service availed by the complainant from the opposite party is in the form of supply of electricity.  Electricity charges to be paid is the consideration for the service and in paying electricity charges, there can hardly be any deficiency in service.  Electricity charges will have to be paid as per rules and regulations of the opposite parties and in this case subject to the eligible subsidy fixed by the agricultural officer.  Subsidy is also to be claimed as per the rules and regulation laid by the government, and it cannot be claimed as a matter of right.  A consumer Forum cannot act as the appellate authority of the agricultural officer and decide the eligible subsidy.  But the consumer Forum exactly acted as the appellate authority and issued order cancelling Ext.P5 notice without proof of any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  The complainant/respondent has not succeeded in proving that any consumer dispute exists between the parties.   Therefore the consumer Forum was not justified in passing the order challenged in this appeal.  Hence the appeal is liable to be allowed.

          In the result, appeal is allowed.  The order of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram, in OP No.35/05 dated 30.11.2013 is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.  The parties are directed to bear their respective costs in this appeal.

 

K. CHANDRADAS NADAR  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

SANTHAMMA THOMAS      : MEMBER

 

nb

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER

 DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU

 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO. 181/14

JUDGMENT DATED:28/03/2016

 

 

 

nb