Judgment:
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
The appellant is the complainant in CC.947/07in the file of CDRF, Thrissur.The complaint filed by the appellant for setting aside the bill for Rs.24,541/- stands dismissed.
2. Both sides were heard at admission.
3. It is the case of the complainant that he was issued with a bill for Rs.24,541 on the ground that has misused the electric connection obtained for agricultural purposes. The electric supply was also disconnected.According to the petitioner he is not conversant in English and that the bill is issued in English.The facts mentioned in the mahazar are not correct.
4. The opposite party had filed version pointing out that the connection in the name of the petitioner was for agricultural purposes and it was single phase.On 24/10/07 the APTS conducted inspection and found that from the agricultural connection he was unauthorizedly using electricity for household purposes.Hence the above connection was disconnected and bill issued.It is denied that the petitioner cannot readEnglish.
5. The evidence adduced consisted of Ext.P1and P2and R1 and R2.
6. The Forum has noted that the petitioner has put his name and also signed in English. The Forum has noted in that it is evident from the documents produced that the complainant has committed theft of electricity and directed to remit the amount in three monthly instalments.It was also directed to restore the connection on receipt of the 1st instalment.
7. The contentions raised the appeal that the complainant was a victim of political animosityhe is not seen mentioned in the complaint filed. The copy of the complaint was produced.In the circumstances I find that there is no patent illegality in the appreciation ofevidence by the Forum.I find that there is no scope for admitting the appeal.
In the result the appeal is dismissed in limine.