Kerala

StateCommission

922/2004

K.S.E.B. Rep.by Secretary - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vinod - Opp.Party(s)

B.Sakthidharan Nair

18 Dec 2007

ORDER


.
CDRC, Sisuvihar Lane, Sasthamangalam.P.O, Trivandrum-10
Appeal(A) No. 922/2004

K.S.E.B. Rep.by Secretary
Asst.Engineer		 ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Vinod
Agricultural Officer		 ...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


For the Appellant :


For the Respondent :




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.

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
 
Common Order in Appeal Nos.918/04,919/04,920/04,921/04,922/04, 923/04,924/04, 925/04,926/04, 927/04, and 930/04
JUDGMENT DATED: 18.12.2007
 
PRESENT
SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN                                       : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                     : MEMBER
Appeal No.918/04
1. Assistant Engineer,
    Electrical Section, P.O.Parappur.              
2. Kerala State Electricity Board,                             : APPELLANTS
    represented by its Secretary,
    Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv.Sakthidharan Nair)
             Vs.
1. Ambujakshy, w/o E.K.Sreedharan,
    Edakkalathur House,
    P.O.Edakkalathur.                                        : RESPONDENTS
 
2. Krishi Officer, Krishi Bhavan,
    Tholoor.P.O., Parappur.
 
Appeal No. 919/04
 
1. Assistant Engineer,
    Electrical Section, P.O.Parappur.                         : APPELLANTS
2. Kerala State Electricity Board,
    represented by its Secretary,
    Thiruvananthapuram.
 
(By Adv.Sakthidharan Nair)
             Vs.
1. Celin George,
    Vettikkappilly,                                                       : RESPONDENTS
    Paduva Garden, Tholloor.P.O.
2. Krishi Officer, Krishi Bhavan,
    Tholloor, Parappur.P.O.
 
Appeal No. 920/04
 
1. Kerala State Electricity Board,                             : APPELLANTS
    represented by its Secretary,
    Thiruvananthapuram.    
2. The Assistant Engineer,
    Electrical Section Office, Parappur,Thrissur.
 
(By Adv.Sakthidharan Nair)
             Vs.
1. C.L.Davis,
    Chittilappilly House,
    P.O. Parappur,Thrissur.                              : RESPONDENTS
2. Krishi Officer, Krishi Bhavan,
    Parappur.P.O., Trichur.
 
Appeal No. 921/04
 
1. The Assistant Engineer,                                  : APPELLANTS
    Electrical Section, P.O.Parappur-680 552.
2. Kerala State Electricity Board,
    represented by its Secretary,
    Thiruvananthapuram.
 
(By Adv.Sakthidharan Nair)
             Vs.
1. E.L.Thomas, Edakkalathur House,                             : RESPONDENTS
   P.O. Edakkalathur.
2. Krishi Officer, Tholoor Krishi Bhavan,
    Parappur.P.O.
 


Appeal No. 922/04
 
1. Kerala State Electricity Board,                             : APPELLANTS
    represented by its Secretary,
    Vaidhythi Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram.
 
2. The Assistant Engineer,
    Electrical Section, P.O.Parappur.
 
(By Adv.Sakthidharan Nair)
             Vs.
1. Vinod,
    S/o late Sankaran, Koottalakkal House,                   : RESPONDENTS
  Edakkalathur, Ponnar, Thrissur Taluk.
2. Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Tholloor,
    Parappur.
 
Appeal No. 923/04
 
1. Kerala State Electricity Board,                             : APPELLANTS
    represented by the Secretary,
    Vaidhythi Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram.
 
2. The Assistant Engineer,
    Electrical Section, K.S.E.Board, P.O.Parappur.
 
(By Adv.Sakthidharan Nair)
             Vs.
1.Avaruhaji, Nalakathu House,                                      : RESPONDENTS
  Tholloor, Thrissur.
2. Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Tholloor,
    Parappur.
 
 
Appeal No. 924/04
 
1. Kerala State Electricity Board,                             : APPELLANTS
    represented by the Secretary,
    Vaidhythi Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram.
 
2. The Assistant Engineer,
    Electrical Section, K.S.E.Board, P.O.Parappur.
 
(By Adv.Sakthidharan Nair)
             Vs.
1.M.Sethumadhavan Mudavakkat House,                   : RESPONDENTS
  Edakkalathur, Thrissur.
2. Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Tholoor,
    Parappur.
 
Appeal No. 925/04
 
1. Kerala State Electricity Board,                             : APPELLANTS
    represented by the Secretary,
    Vaidhuthi Bhavan, Pattom,Thiruvananthapuram.
 
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
    Electrical Major Section, Nadathara.
 
(By Adv.Sakthidharan Nair)
             Vs.
1.Narayanan,
  S/o Thattamparambil Krishnan Ezhuthachan,         : RESPONDENTS
  Moorkkanikkara, Kozhukully, Thrissur.
2. Krishi Bhavan, Nadathara Grama Panchayat,
    represented by Agricultural Officer,
    Kozhukully, Thrissur.
 
Appeal No. 926/04
 
1. The Assistant Engineer,                                  : APPELLANTS
    Electrical Section No.II,
    K. S. E.Board Office,
    Kodungalloor.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
    Electrical Section ,
    K. S. E.Board Office, Eriyad.
 
3. Kerala State Electricity Board,
    represented by its Secretary,
    Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom,
     Thiruvananthapuram.
 
(By Adv.Sakthidharan Nair)
             Vs.
1. Joseph, S/o Padmattummal Bava,
   Edavilangu,    Kodungalloor.                                     : RESPONDENTS
2. Asokan, S/o Pindiyathupady,
    Velayudhan Kathiyalam,
     Edavilangu.
3. Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan,
    Edavilangu, Thrissur.
 
Appeal No. 927/04
 
1. The Assistant Engineer,                                  : APPELLANTS
    Electrical Section,
    Kerala State Electricity Board,
    Ollur.
2. Kerala State Electricity Board,
    represented by its Secretary,
    Thiruvananthapuram.
 
(By Adv.Sakthidharan Nair)
             Vs.
1. Unnichekkan,
   S/o Keezhvakkal Ravunni,                          : RESPONDENTS
    P.O. Ollur.
2. Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan,
    Cheerachi, Thrissur District.
Appeal No. 930/04
 
1. The Assistant Engineer,                         : APPELLANTS
    Electrical Section,
    Kerala State Electricity Board,
    Parappur.
2. Kerala State Electricity Board,
    represented by its Secretary,
    Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv.Sakthidharan Nair)
 
             Vs.
1. Beena.A.A,
   Arakulathil House,                                      : RESPONDENTS
    P.O. Parappur, Thrissur District.
 
2. Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan,
    Parappur.
 
JUDGMENT
SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
The above appeals are preferred from the common order dated 22nd July 2004 passed by CDRF, Thrissur in original petition Nos. OPs.507/04, 511/04, 107/04, 242/04, 271/04, 272/04, 270/04, 117/04, 58/04,116/04 and 274/04. The complaints in the above original petitions were filed against appellants 1 to 3 as the opposite parties 1 to 3. Kerala State Electricity Board and also against the Agricultural Officer of the concerned Krishi Bhavan seeking the reliefs of canceling electricity bills issued by KSEB and also to direct the KSEB for not initiating any steps for realisation of the electricity charges. It was also requested for passing an order directing the KSEB to reconnect the supply of electricity which was disconnected by the KSEB on the ground of non payment of electricity charges due to KSEB. The lower forum accepted the case of the complainants to a greater extent and thereby passed the impugned common order directing the concerned Agricultural Officer to prepare the list of eligible agriculturists and to submit the same to the concerned Assistant Engineer or Asst. Executive Engineer of KSEB for the purpose of giving the benefit to the farmers by virtue of the Government Order (MS)30/99/AD/dated 4.2.99. Kerala State Electricity Board has also been prevented from disconnecting the supply of electricity to the petitioners being the farmers coming under the purview of the above said Government Order dated 4.2.99 and also directing the KSEB for not taking any steps for realisation of the current charges due to KSEB. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the lower Forum the present appeals are filed by KSEB.
2. When this appeals were taken for final hearing there was no representation for the complainants and the Agricultural Officers concerned. It is to be noted that the counsel for the first complainant in OP.58/04(1st respondent in A.926/04) was present. We heard the counsel for the appellants and also the counsel for the 1st respondent in Appeal 926/04. The learned counsel for the appellants namely KSEB submitted his arguments on the basis of the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeals. It is also pointed out that the lower Forum has not properly considered the provisions contained in the Government Order (MS)/30/99/AD/dted 4.2.99 and the consequential order dated 25.2.99 issued by the KSEB. It is further pointed out that the lower Forum has omitted or failed to prescribe the                  time for implementing the directions imposed on Agricultural Officer in submitting or preparing the list of the eligible agriculturists. Thus, these appellants (KSEB) requested for setting aside the impugned common order dated 22.7.04 passed by the lower Forum. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent in Appeal 926/04(1st complainant in OP.58/04) submitted that the 1st complainant in OP.58/04/1st respondent is an eligible agriculturist and his name was included in the list submitted by the concerned Agricultural Officer. It is further submitted that the 1st complainant therein remitted more than Rs.10000/- towards the amounts covered by the electricity bills issued by KSEB. Thus, 1st complainant in OP.58/04 requested for upholding the impugned order passed by the lower Forum.
3. The common points that arise for consideration are:-
1) Is there occurred any deficiency in service on the part of KSEB in providing the electricity supply to the complainant as the eligible agriculturists entitled to get exemption from payment of electricity charges?
2) Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned common order dated 22.7.04 passed by the lower Forum in the original petition Nos. 507/04, 511/04, 107/04,242/04,271/04, 272/04, 270/04,117/04, 58/04,116/04 and 274/04.
4. Points 1 and 2:-
 
We will refer the parties to these appeals according to their status before the lower Forum in the original petitions filed before the CDRF, Thrissur.
5. The case of the complainants is that they are eligible agriculturists entitled for exemption from payment of electricity charges. It is also their case that their names are included in the list prepared and submitted by the concerned Agricultural Officer and forwarded to the concerned Asst.Executive Engineer of KSEB. The complainants are also definite in their stand that they submitted respective applications to the concerned Agricultural Officer for the purpose of getting their names included in the list of eligible agriculturists. On the other hand, the Agricultural Officer concerned has taken a very indefinite stand. In the case some of the agriculturists  he would say that their names were included in the list submitted to the concerned Asst.Executive Enginner, KSEB and with respect to some others he would say that no applications were submitted by the agriculturists for getting their names included in the list of eligible agriculturists. But the appellants/concerned officials of KSEB would taken the stand that no such list was submitted by the concerned Agricultural Officer for the purpose of preparing and submitting the invoice as stipulated in the government order dated 4.2.99. Thus, the parties before the lower Forum have taken a very strange stand. The lower Forum was constrained to pass the impugned order giving some directions to the concerned Agricultural officer and the KSEB, for the purpose of giving the benefit conferred on the agriculturists by virtue of the G.O. dated 4.2.99.
6. There can be no doubt that the order now prevailing in this matter is the Government Order (MS)/30/99/AD dated 4.2.99. The aforesaid Government Order would make it clear about the category of the agriculturists who are eligible to get exemption from payment of electricity charges. Clause 4 of aforesaid G.O can be treated as the relevant clause as far as the present appeals are concerned or as far as the disputes involved in these appeals are concerned.   It reads as follows:-
‘H]1<_ [[E:_W8UBda !MICTB *MG*CW[3 \=CW^ EUF:ATB  \AOEUDTHEW^ !3hWk Ha\ppW[ANWa 'Cta =*Mga~ [[E:_W8U\?TM5U[NL [HRN\\A1M [HRN !3UHa9T<fUO *_GU )T>VHM 8BaBTLTdU AXka ATHfU[DTCUdO ?<a;[ge !HUHapNLWa "*aHU "2a/U<VB[L\BT !HUHapNLWa "2a/U<VB[L\BT \"OgU\dt8T7a& [[E:_W8U\?TM5U[D ?<a;[ge $] %\:_T,Ha9M )T\CT *MG*<W^ !3Ba\dt [[E:_W8U /TM1a Ha\ppW[ANUO \C+[g3WfU [ATf^ 8W*BadWm )CW $N\ETBaHW^ 'Cta =*Mga~ HTR_[g3WfUB Ha\ppW[ANLU[NL )CW =*MgW^ *X3U )T>VH[L \"OgU\dt8T7a& `=Ha8W8 Ha\ppW[ANLW^ $N\ETBaHW^ D@U/a/W =8a8W :UEHfU<*^ 8W* ATLU *_GU )T>VHM !HUHapNLWa "2a/U<VB[L ![DaDvUO !HUHapNLWa "*aHU. "2a/U<VB[L (PgUdWkW& $`=*TC^ =8a8W :UEHfU<*^ 8W* ATLU EU:_W&\?TM5U[D !HUHapNLWa "2a/U<VBM\!HUHapNLWa "*aHU "2a/U<VB[L (OgU/a/U[DaDvUO EU:W/a0*a8U *7*aGN EU/a\0:UdWk8U<a EU:_W/a0*a8U \?TM5U<a !;U*TCAWtTBUCUdW^&’
 
 
 
7. By virtue of the aforesaid clause 4, it is incumbent upon the concerned Agricultural Officer to prepare the statement including the names of all the eligible agriculturists and the said statement in duplicate is to be entrusted with the concerned Asst. Engineer or Asst.Executive Engineer of the KSEB and such statements/list are to be prepared and submitted once in every 3 months. It is further stipulated that on getting such a statement the concerned officer of KSEB must prepare a statement showing the electricity charges due from each and every eligible agriculturists and also to submit an invoice to the concerned Agricultural Officer. It is made clear that on getting the aforesaid invoice it is the duty of the concerned Agricultural Officer to see that the amount covered by the said invoice is paid to or entrusted with the concerned Asst. Engineer or Asst. Executive Engineer and that the said amount is to be paid within 10 days of getting the statement and the invoice. The KSEB is given the authority to disconnect the supply of electricity to the agriculturists in the event of failure to pay the electricity charges as shown in the invoice within 10 days of getting that invoice. But the lower forum has not seriously considered the conditions stipulated in Clause 4 of the Government Order dated 4.2.99.
8. Another important aspect to be noted at this juncture is the failure on the part of the concerned Agricultural Officer and the concerned Engineers of KSEB to produce the necessary supporting documents to substantiate their case regarding preparation of the statement of the eligible candidates, preparations of the statement and the invoice etc. The records available would give an indication with the concerned Officers of Agricultural Department and also the concerned Engineers of KSEB were     negligent in properly conducting the respective cases of the departments. They neglected to adduce proper evidence. They failed to produce the necessary documents which are in their possession. It is to be noted that the Officials of KSEB have contended that the names of the complainants were not included in the list or statements submitted by the concerned Agricultural Officer. It is pertinent to note that the KSEB did not produce the aforesaid list or statement submitted to KSEB by the concerned Agricultural Officer. It is only on production of the said statement it can be ascertained as to whether the names of the complainants were included or not. Likewise the concerned Agricultural Officer has also failed to produce necessary documents in support of his case regarding preparation and submission of the statement showing the names of the eligible agriculturists. Considering all these aspects of the case we are of the strong view that these cases are to be remitted back to the lower Forum for fresh consideration in accordance with law, especially in the light of the G.O referred to above and also the order dated 25.2.99 issued by KSEB. It is also made clear that the parties before the lower Forum will be at liberty to adduce further evidence inorder to substantiate the case pleaded by the respective parties. The impugned common order dated 22.7.04 passed by the lower Forum is liable to be setaside for the purpose of giving an opportunity to the parties to substantiate their respective pleadings. These points answered accordingly.
9. In the result the above appeals are disposed of.   The impugned order passed by CDRF, Thrissur is set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower Forum for fresh disposal in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made by this State Commission.  Consider the facts and circumstances of the case the parties to these appeals are directed to suffer their respective costs.
10. It is made clear that the appellants/KSEB should not proceed against the agriculturists until the disposal of the complaint in the aforesaid original petitions by the lower Forum.
The parties are directed to appear before the lower Forum on 13.2.08.
 
 
SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN                              : JUDICIAL MEMBER
 
SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR           : MEMBER
 
 
 
 
 
 
ps