State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kerala State Electicity Board vs K.J.Sebastian on 8 April, 2008
KERALA STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.184/02
JUDGMENT DATED: 8/4/08
PRESENT:
JUSTICE
SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SMT.VALSALA
SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
SHRI.S.CHANDRA
MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
1. Kerala
State Electicity Board
rep.by
its Chairman,
Thiruvananthapuram
:
APPELLANTS
2. The
Asst.Executive Engineer,
K.S.E.Board,
Electrical Major-
Section,
Sultanbathery,
Wayanad.
(By
Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair)
Vs.
K.J.Sebastian,
S/o.Joseph,
Kollarath House, : RESPONDENT
Pathiri.P.O.,
Mullankolly,
Pulpally,
Wayanad.
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/K.S.E.B. which has sought for setting aside the order dated 4.12.2001 in OP.No.38/1997 in the file of CDRF, Wyanad. The appellants has been directed to stall the Revenue Recovery Proceedings for the recovery of Rs.8,777.80 (Rs.5,227.35) and reconnect the electric supply which has been disconnected and dismantled.
2. It is the case of the complainant that he is a consumer under minimum guarantee scheme and that the opposite parties disconnected electric supply on 12/91 and dismantled on 6/96. The opposite parties have claimed the minimum guarantee amount even for period subsequent to the date of disconnection. Hence it is the contention that after disconnection the appellants are not entitled to realize minimum guarantee amount vide, the Revenue Recovery Proceedings. On the other hand the opposite parties have contented that as per the minimum guarantee agreement the complainant is bound to pay the minimum guarantee amount + electric charges. Although initially a bill of Rs.8,777.80 was issued for the minimum current charges + minimum guarantee amount subsequently the bill was revised and for the period after the date of disconnection only the minimum guarantee amount was been claimed and not that current charges as per the slab system.
3. Although the respondent / complainant was served with notice there is no appearance. The evidence adduced before the Forum consisted of the testimony of PW1, Exts.A1 to A5, Exts.B1 to B5 and CPWs 1& 2.
4. We find that it is not disputed that the complainant obtained electric connection after executing the minimum guarantee agreement. It is also not disputed that as per the minimum guarantee agreement the complainant is bound to remit the guaranteed amount whether the complainant has consumed electricity or not. In the instant case for the period after the date of disconnection the appellant has claimed only minimum guarantee amount and not the electric charges as per existing slab. Admittedly the date of disconnection is 12/91. Thereafter till the date of dismantling the appellant has only claimed the minimum guarantee amount. It would altogether come Rs.2,497.34 + penal interest of Rs.2,730; altogether Rs.5,227.35. The finding of the Forum that the appellants have no authority to disconnect electric supply cannot be upheld. The counsel also relied on the decision in Rajesh Vs K.S.E.B, 2006 (1)KLT 686 of the High Court of Kerala. Therein it has been held that the consumer is liable to pay minimum charge even after the service is disconnected. In the circumstances and in the light of the above decision we find that the order of the Forum directing the appellant to reconnect the supply cannot sustained. The order of the Forum is set aside. The complainant is liable to pay the bill amount of Rs.5,277.35. The complainant is directed to pay the amount within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. Only if the amount is not paid within the above period the opposite parties will be entitled to realize the above amount with interest @ 12% from the date of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT VALSALA SARANGADHARAN, MEMBER S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR, MEMBER Pk.