KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 50/08 JUDGMENT DATED 9.7.08 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, -- APPELLANT Thirurangadi, Malappuram. (By Adv.S.Balachandran) Vs. V.P.Thithimu, Valiya Parampathu House, Thenmala P.O, West Bazaar, -- RESPONDENT Thirurangadi, Malappuram. (By Adv.P.P.Balakrishnan) JUDGMENT SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR,MEMBER The order dated 7.2.08 in OP. 12/06 of CDRF, Malappuram is being assailed in this appeal by the opposite party who is under orders to cancel Ext.A6 notice since the complainant has paid current charges amounting to Rs.17,719/- as per the directions of the Hon.High Court. The complainant has approached the Forum alleging that the bill issued to him for Rs.29034/- is not liable to be paid by him. Though the bill was revised to Rs.25,699/- on 17.11.05 the complainant was not prepared to pay the said amount since current charges become arrears because the opposite party failed to accept the charges without remitting the disputed bill for Rs.1989/-. It is his very case that the surcharge of Rs.7880/- and reconnection of Rs.100/- is imposed on him without reasons and it is done arbitrarily by the opposite party. Praying for the cancellation of the bill for Rs.25,699/-, the complaint was filed before the Forum with the further prayers for compensation and costs. The opposite party in his version contended that since the complainant refused to pay the disputed bill amount of Rs.1989/- the opposite party was not in a position to accept the part payment and that as per Rule 32 (f) of the conditions of supply, the opposite party was not in a position to accept the amount offered by the complainant. It was also submitted that the amount of Rs.17719/- was accepted as per the directions of the Hon.High Court. However, it is the further case that the complainant was liable to pay the surcharge and other charges contained in Ext.A6. Submitting that there was no deficiency in service, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Evidence consisted of the documents produced by the complainant which were marked as Ext.A1 to A9. There was no document on the side of the opposite party. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party vehemently argued before us that the Forum has cancelled Ext.A6 without appreciating the facts and circumstance of the case. It is his very case that the opposite party was not prepared to accept the payments from the complainant/respondent as the complainant was not prepared to remit the bill amount of Rs.1989/-. It is also his case that by virtue of Rule 32 (f) of the conditions of supply, payment of subsequent dues cannot be accepted without clearing earlier dues and hence the action of the opposite party in not receiving the amounts from the complainant cannot be termed as deficiency in service. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that the finding of the forum below that the bill for Rs.1989/- was cancelled vide orders in OP.215/03 is not and he canvassed for the position that the Forum below passed the order without considering the question of limitation and other aspects of the case and hence the order of the Forum below is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below and argued that the Forum ought to have awarded compensation also for the deficiency in service of the opposite parties. It is his very case that the opposite party was disobeying the orders of the Forum consistently and that the non payment of the current charges was not due to any fault of the complainant. The complainant had remitted Rs.17719/- as per the orders of the Hon.High Court and also that as he had acted according to the directions of the Forum and the Hon. High Court and further that the opposite party was liable to cancel Ext.A6 bill for Rs.25695/-. Thus, it is his case that the appeal is also liable to be dismissed. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent and also on perusing the records produced by the learned counsels, we find that it is the admitted case of both parties that Ext.A6 bill for Rs.25,699/- was issued by the opposite party calling for the complainant to pay the same failing which there would be disconnection. It is seen that the complainant has approached the Hon.High Court and order has been passed by the Hon.High Court directing him to pay the admitted arrears and the complainant had remitted the amount of Rs.17,719/-. It is the case of the appellant that the bill for Rs.1,989/- was not remitted by the complainant/respondent which was the subject matter in OP.215/03 and the Forum below had not canceled the bill. It is also his case that as per the conditions of supply the opposite party was not in a position to accept the subsequent dues without clearing the earlier amount of Rs.1989/-. Though the appellant had argued for such positions nothing is produced to substantiate the said contentions before the Forum. In the appellate stage, the learned counsel produced the copy of the order in OP.215/03. On a perusal of the order, it is seen that the Forum below had cancelled the disputed bill for Rs.1989/- though the complainant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.609.50/-. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the complainant had to remit Rs.1989/- cannot be entertained as the facts and circumstances prove other wise. In the circumstances, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. Hence we do so accordingly. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The order dated 7.2.08 in OP.12/06 is confirmed. In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT | 
