State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jalaja, vs Asst. Executive Engineer, on 29 September, 2012
Daily Order
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Vazhuthacaud,Thiruvananthapuram First Appeal No. A/12/131 (Arisen out of Order Dated 29/10/2011 in Case No. cc/06/403 of District Trissur) 1. Jalaja, W/o. Ananda Narayanan Mecherivalappil house,
Muthuvara(PO)
Trissur Thrissur Kerala ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Asst. Exe. Engineer, KSEB Electrical Sub division,
Muthuvara Thrissur Kerala ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA PRESIDING MEMBER PRESENT: ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NO. 131/12
JUDGMENT DATED : 29/09/2012
PRESENT:
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : HON.ACTING PRESIDENT
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER
Jalaja, W/o Ananda Narayanan,
Mecherivalappil House, : APPELLANT
P.O. Muthuvara, Thrissur.
(By Advs. Girish Kumar A.G., & Others)
Vs
1. Asst. Executive Engineer,
Electrical Sub-division,
Muthuvara.
2. Asst. Engineer,
Electrical Sub-division, : RESPONDENTS
Muthuvara.
3. K.S.E Board,
Vythythi Bhavan,
Thiruvananthapuram,
Rep. by Secretary.
(By Adv. B. Sakthidharan Nair)
JUDGMENT
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : HON.ACTING PRESIDENT On this day this appeal came before this Commission for final hearing the respondents are present and there is no representation for the appellant since 12.09.12 to this date. On 12.09.12 adjourned on payment of cost of Rs.200/- to the legal aid fund and ordered in a last chance and put in top in the list and posted on 18.9.2012. But on 18.9.2012 and seeing that no representation for the appellant and no cost paid as ordered on 12.09.12 it further ordered from hearing on 19.9.12. This case called for hearing no representation for the appellant and cost also did not pay as ordered by this Commission. In the case bundle; it is seeing that on 14.8.2012 the counsel filed a petition to adjourn his case due to his illness. It was allowed. But after this date this case was called and adjourned but there is no representation for the appellant.
2. This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Thrissur in CC No.403/06 filed on 25.05.06.
3. The complainant is a consumer of the opposite party. The complainant was regularly paid the electricity bills before constructing the house she had constructed a temporary shed in the plot. Initially the electric connection and meter were installed at the temporary shed. At the time of allotting permanent connection to the house, the officials of respondents drawn service wire from the temporary shed to residential house. From the time of allotting the connection till now the electrical supply system continued as such. The residential house was numbered as XIII/370. The complainant several occasions approached to the opposite parties for getting separate electricity supply to the building No.XIII/370A. But the opposite parties were evading their duty. At last the complainant sent a registered notice and after receiving notice. The 1st opposite party issued a reply stating that the documents and files were misplaced. So the complainant approached to the opposite parties and intimated them about the bill number and date. But no steps taken and the complainant can use the electricity supply as such. The 1st opposite party directly visited the building No.370A for checking the facilities. Instead of giving a separate electricity connection they issued a penal bill for Rs.13,500/. The complainant is not liable to pay the amount and she alleged that the KSEB people (opposite parties) for to issue such a bill.
4. On other side, the complainant filed a version with some other source. According to them the complainant had to be penalized and service to non electrified premises has to be disconnected. On 30.10.08 when the consumer informed that they are not ready to take any action for regularization. Opposite parties have no other option 0but to disconnect the supply to prevent electrical accidents. On 31.10.08, the detailed mahazar was prepared and 24 hours notice served to the complainant and disconnected the power supply. The complainant with malafied intention and ulterior motive to created nuisance to the opposite parties as well as for judiciary retained an unsafe nonstandard and unauthorized premise. Hence they prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. After heard both parties and appreciated the evidence adduced by both sides, the Forum below dismissed the complaint with a direction to pay cost of Rs.5,000/- to the respondents within 2 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The appellant prefers this appeal from this impugned order passed by the Forum below.
6. In the absence of the complainant and their counsels we examine the entire case bundle and it is seeing that there is no apparent error in the order passed by the Forum below. But we think that the compensatory cost ordered by the Forum below against a lady consumer complainant is not fair even though the Fora is established as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, it is a social benefited legislation as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Among the members of the Fora, State Commission and the National Commission, one member among the woman community. It is a mandatory statutory provision. In the Forum below is also having a lady member with having social background who appointed as per the provision but we didn't see any view or opinion mentioned by such a lady member in the order passed by the Forum below. In the circumstance, we decided to set aside the cost ordered by the Forum below against the women consumer complainant.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and set aside the cost ordered by the Forum below as Rs.5,000/- to the opposite parties.
All the findings of the Forum below is uphold, this appeal is disposed on merit, accordingly.
M.K. ABDULLA SONA: HON.ACTING PRESIDENT
A. RADHA : MEMBER
Da
[ SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA] PRESIDING MEMBER