ASSTT. EXE. ENG., ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KSEB Vs. PRAKASAN N.V.
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Asstt. Exe. Eng., Electrical Major Section, Kseb
Click here to view full judgement.
M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER -
(1.) THE above appeal is preferred
from the order dated 15.2.2008 passed by CDRF, Malappuram in OP121/01.
The complaint therein was filed by the respondent herein against the
appellants/opposite parties alleging deficiency of service on the part of
the opposite parties in their failure to change the tariff to LT VII -B.
The opposite parties entered appearance and written version contending
that there was no deficiency of service on their part.
(2.) BEFORE the Forum below Exs. A1 to A8 documents were produced from the side of the complainant. No evidence was adduced by the opposite
parties. On an appreciation of the facts, circumstances and documentary
evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order directing
the opposite parties to change the tariff of the Consumer No. 10002 from
LTVII -A to LT VII -B and pay compensation of Rs.5,000 with cost of Rs.750.
Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is filed by the opposite
(3.) WE heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant opposite parties submitted his arguments based on the ground urged in the
memorandum of the present appeal. He categorically admitted the fact that
the opposite parties in their written version expressed their readiness
to change the tariff from LT VII -A to LT VII -B. During the course of
arguments we felt the necessity of personal appearance of the Assistant
Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Kondotty who is the
concerned officer to take necessary steps to get the tariff changed from
LT VII -A to LT VII -B. So, as per the direction of this Commission the
present Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Kondotty,
KSEB has also appeared before this Commission. He insisted for submission
of a written request by the owner of the building who is the registered
consumer of the connection with consumer No: 10002.
The points that arise for consideration are:
1. Whether the respondent/complainant is entitled to get the tariff changed from LT VII -A to LT VII -B. ?
2. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in insisting for a written request from the registered consumer/owner of the building?
3. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 15.2.2008 passed by CDRF, Malappuram in OP121/01? Point Nos. 1 to 3: Admittedly the respondent/complainant is the person in occupation of the premises where the Electricity connection with consumer No. 10002 is provided. The present tariff made application to the complainant is LT VII -A. There is no dispute that at present the connected load to consumer No.10002 has been reduced and thereby the aforesaid electricity connection should be one under LT VII -B. The Assistant Executive Engineer who appeared in person has also admitted the fact that at present the connected load provided for consumer No. 10002 is within the limits so as to change the tariff from LT VII -A to LT VII -B. The only problem or difficulty facing the opposite parties to change the tariff from LT VII -A to LT VII -B is the failure of the registered consumer to make a written request for change of tariff. ;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.