ASSTT. EXE. ENG., ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KSEB Vs. PRAKASAN N.V.
LAWS(KERCDRC)-2010-2-9
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on February 09,2010

Asstt. Exe. Eng., Electrical Major Section, Kseb Appellant
VERSUS
Prakasan N.V. Respondents

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 parties therein.
(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. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.