KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.674/09 JUDGMENT DATED 18.8.10 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER 1. The Asst.Engineer, KSEB, Vatakara North, Nut Street, Vatakara, Kozhikode Dist. 2. The Chairman, -- APPELLANTS KSEB, Vyduthi Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair) Vs. V.K.Kunhabdulla, S/0 Moideen Musaliyar -- RESPONDENT Elliyatt, Vadakke Kuyyalil House, Ponmeri Amsom, Parambil Desom, Villiapalli, Vadakara, Kozhikode District. JUDGMENT SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR, MEMBER The order dated 1.10.09 in CC 299/06 of CDRF, Kozhikode is being assailed in this appeal by the opposite parties who are under directions to cancel Ext.A9 demand notice and to reconnect the electricity connection to the complainant and to issue fresh bills for the energy consumed after the period from 10.10.05 till the disconnection. The opposite parties are also under directions to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as costs, failing which the amounts shall carry interest at 12% per annum from the date of default. The Forum below has given further direction to KSEB/opposite party to take steps to recover the amount awarded as compensation and costs from those employees who are found responsible for the deficiency in service which culminated in passing the order. The complainant had approached the Forum below stating that he was a consumer of the opposite parties having connection of which the two connections were agricultural, one commercial and the other domestic. The complainant had filed an earlier complaint as OP.155/04 before the Forum alleging frequent failure in the supply and issuance of certain bills and also for disconnection of service. It is stated by the complainant that the Forum below had passed the order in OP.155/04 on 9.8.05 and directed the opposite parties to re-instate the electric connection without direction for payment of any amount by the complainant to the opposite parties. The opposite parties re-instated the electric supply on 10.10.05 and there was no appeal y the opposite parties. The complainant had submitted that the order became final and the present complaint was against the issuance of a notice dated 20.7.06 demanding a sum of Rs.20,925/- claiming to be the alleged arrears for the period from 2/04 to 2/06 for the consumption of electricity towards consumer connection E-29. The complainant had submitted before the Forum that he was not liable to pay the said amount, as the opposite parties were entitled to collect the charges only from 10.10.05 on which date the supply was restored to the premises. The opposite parties in their version contended that the complaint was bad for non-jointer of necessary parties and that the complaint was not maintainable. It was also submitted that the complainant was a defaulter who owed huge amount to the Board and that the directions in the order in OP.155/04 was duly complied with and the service was disconnected for non payment of arrears. Submitting that there was no deficiency in service the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The Forum below, on an application by the complainant appointed an Advocate Commissioner and the report dated 5.10.06 was marked as Ext.C1. On the side of the complainant, the complainant was examined as PW1 and documents A1 to A10 were marked. On the side of the opposite parties, no evidence was adduced. It is based on the available evidence that the Forum below passed the impugned order. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued before us that the order of the Forum below is per se illegal and un-sustainable. It is his very case that the dis-connection was due to the non payment of huge arrears by the complainant and the Forum below had not adverted to the contentions of the opposite parties in its correct perspective. It is also argued by him that the Forum below ought to have found that the order in OP.155/04 did not contain an indication that the OP was completely allowed setting aside the bill for Rs.3,968/- issued by the opposite parties claiming electricity charges for the connection bearing No.E-29 for the period from 14.2.04 to 17.3.04. It was also submitted before us that the opposite parties had complied with the direction to give electricity connection to the complainant on 10.10.05 which does not mean that they had waived the right of claiming the amounts to be realized from the complainant. It is also his case that the Forum below failed to consider the evidence adduced by the opposite parties in the form of proof affidavit and 2 documents produced along with the version filed by the opposite parties. Thus, he canvassed for the position that the Forum below had ignored many of the vital principles in the disposal of the complaint in CC.299/06. He has also challenged the order directing the payment of compensation and costs to the complainant. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below and argued before us that the opposite parties have filed this appeal only to harass the complainant further and to put him in difficulties. The learned counsel submitted before us that the order in OP.155/04 had become final as the opposite parties did not challenge the order by way of any appeal. It is also his case that while directing the opposite parties to reconnect the electricity connection, the Forum below did not make any direction to pay any amount towards back arrears or pay any bill issued by the opposite parties. It is his very case that in passing the present order in OP.299/06, the Forum below had considered all these aspects in its correct perspective and found that there was grave deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and also that the complainant had suffered great loss due to non use of the oil expeller, copra cutting machine, the flour mill etc. due to the disconnection of service by the opposite parties. It is also argued by him that the compensation awarded by the forum below is only on the lower side and it is perfectly justified in directing the KSEB to take steps against those who were responsible for the loss sustained by the complainant. It is his further submission that the appeal is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent and also on perusing the records, we find that the Forum below had passed an order in OP.155/04 directing the opposite parties to reconnect the electricity supply to the complainant and that the said order has became final, as the opposite parties had not preferred any appeal from the said order. On a perusal of the order in OP.155/04 produced as Ext.A4, we find that the opposite parties were set ex-parte due to their absence and that it was based on the Exts. marked therein that the complaint was allowed by the Forum below directing the opposite party to re-instate the electric connection. The relevant portion of the order dated 9.8.05 reads as follows:- “In the result, petition is allowed and the opposite parties ordered to re-instate the electric connection.” It is also noted that the electric connection was re-instated consequent to the EP filed by the complainant and it is done only on 10.10.05. We are at a loss to understand why the opposite parties were negligent in prosecuting a complaint in which notice was given to them and also that they were keeping silent or rather showing a negligent attitude in conducting the present OP.No.299/06 before the Forum. We are inclined to accept the contention of the complainant/respondent that the opposite parties are not entitled to collect any previous arrears. They can collect only the charges from 10.10.05 as ordered by the Forum below. It is also seen that the Forum below had given right to the opposite parties to collect the charges for the period from 10.10.05 till the disconnection thereafter. However, we find that the Forum below had further directed the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- which according to us is on the higher side as the complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that he had suffered great loss due to the disconnection by the opposite parties. The Forum below had found that the disconnection had caused serious damage to the complainant. The commission report would show that the pump set was rusted and the machinery, pump set etc. would value about 1.7 lakhs apart from the loss/damage. It is interesting to find that the opposite parties have not filed any objection to the said report challenging the same or adduced any contra-evidence to the Commission Report. In the facts and circumstances, we feel that the complainant has suffered loss for which he is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation. The Forum below had also directed the KSE Board to look into the matter seriously and takes steps to recover the amount awarded as compensation from the employees who were responsible for the acts which led to the passing of the order directing compensation. We will not stand in the way of KSE Board in proceeding with the said direction. On a perusal of the order and on an appreciation of the entire facts and circumstances of the case we also feel that there was serious lapses on the part of the opposite parties in prosecuting the matter before the Forum below. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with the modifications indicated above. Thereby, the opposite parties are directed to cancel Ext.A9 demand notice and to reconnect the supply to the complainant and issue fresh bills for the consumption made after 10.10.05 with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.3000/-. In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER s/L | 
