Skip to content


Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Peringottukara K.S.E.B., Peringottukara P.O. and Another Vs. M.K. Ramachandran - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Decided On

Case Number

First Appeal No. 814 of 2012 (Arisen out of Order Dated 26/04/2012 in Case No. CC/09/304 of District Trissur)

Judge

Appellant

Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Peringottukara K.S.E.B., Peringottukara P.O. and Another

Respondent

M.K. Ramachandran

Excerpt:


.....on file. 4. on perusal of the records we feel that the lower forum had rightly construed in concluding the order and however still could not relate to the fact why appellants could not raise the concern previously. it is noted that appellants have stated that spot billing was started on around 1st january 2001 on by monthly basis then with the updating and use of technology, it could had been very well found out at the early stages itself that the respondent had not been paying the charges. the law well defines that œif continuous recovery of amount is not shown such arrears can not be recovered. in this case there has been no evidence adduced stating that such arrears or bill amount as claimed in the ledger provided by the kseb has been communicated to the respondent even after 2001 but the appellants waited till 2009 to directly issue a notice to the respondent for payment of arrears. we do not see a reason to interfere with the order and direction passed by the lower forum as it is fully justifiable and well defined with reasons. in the result, the appeal dismissed without cost confirming the order of the district forum, thrissur in case cc.no.304/09.

Judgment:


Santhamma Thomas : Member

The judgment dated 26th April 2012 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur in case CC.No.304/09 filed on 24.04.2009, allowing the complaint and 1st and 2nd respondents in the Lower Forum is challenging the order as specified below in the present appeal.

2. The respondent is a consumer vides number 4082 with Appellants since 11/98 as per the records submitted. It is stated that respondent had given a request to Agricultural Officer for exemption of electricity charges as any electricity connection obtained or used for agricultural purpose shall be for free. However the appellants had issued a notice on 02.03.2009 to the respondent stating that there have been arrears since 11/98 for his electricity connection and it is demanded to make the payment immediately for which any default the connection shall be disconnected. Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Anthikkad, Thrissur who was the 3rd respondent in the Lower Forum supported the appellants by providing statements that respondent had not provided with any application to them for exemption of electricity charges for agricultural purposes and hence in the list provided by them did not contain the name of the respondent to the appellants. The respondent approached the Lower Forum and based on the submissions and arguments the Lower Forum concluded that the appellants do not have any right to claim for arrears as the same is barred under Section 56 (2) of the Indian Electricity Act and there had been a serious deficiency on the part of the KSEB officials. The Lower Forum ordered the Exhibit P1, the notice issued by the appellants to respondent to be cancelled and directed the complainant to put an application to Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Anthikkad, Thrissur within two months and directed the Agricultural Officer to dispose the application within a month on receipt of the application. Hence this appeal by the appellants against the order by the Lower Forum primarily alleging that Lower Forum had resorted to wrong provisions in order to conclude the judgment.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused records on file.

4. On perusal of the records we feel that the Lower Forum had rightly construed in concluding the order and however still could not relate to the fact why appellants could not raise the concern previously. It is noted that appellants have stated that spot billing was started on around 1st January 2001 on by monthly basis then with the updating and use of technology, it could had been very well found out at the early stages itself that the respondent had not been paying the charges. The law well defines that œif continuous recovery of amount is not shown such arrears can not be recovered. In this case there has been no evidence adduced stating that such arrears or bill amount as claimed in the ledger provided by the KSEB has been communicated to the respondent even after 2001 but the appellants waited till 2009 to directly issue a notice to the respondent for payment of arrears. We do not see a reason to interfere with the order and direction passed by the Lower Forum as it is fully justifiable and well defined with reasons.

In the result, the appeal dismissed without cost confirming the order of the District Forum, Thrissur in case CC.No.304/09.




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //