KSEB Vs. SOSAMMA VARGHESE
LAWS(KERCDRC)-2009-8-2
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on August 07,2009

KSEB Appellant
VERSUS
Sosamma Varghese Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS appeal prefers from the Order passed by the CDRF, Kollam in the file of OP No. 412/04 dated 21.11.2006. The appellants are the opposite parties prefer this appeal from the above order.
(2.)THE complainant is a senior citizen and a widow. In the year 1995, the complainant obtained an electrical connection to her house as per consumer No. 7676 of Electrical Section, Chengamanadu. The said connection was obtained by the complainant under the OYEC Scheme after paying an amount of Rs. 1,250 on 24.11.1995 as demanded by the 3rd opposite party. Ever since, the complainant has been paying the monthly electricity bills as demanded by the opposite parties. On 2nd week of September 2004, the complainant received a notice demanded a further payment of Rs. 10,750 towards balance OYEC charge. Demand notice issued after a period of 9 years is a huge deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and prays for relief. The opposite party simply filed a version contending that the connection had been sanctioned to the complainant for construction 35 metres of weather proof portion only. But the complainant had effected by drawing 43 metres of weather proof wire and as per existing rules the OYEC amount for the construction of service portion beyond 35 metres to 65 metres is Rs. 12,000. Hence the complainant is liable to pay Rs. 10,750.
(3.)THE Forum below considered two points, whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties? And reliefs and costs? The complainant examined as PW1 and marked as Exts. P1 and P2. P2 is the Power of Attorney. There is no evidence adduced by the opposite party. The Forum below discussed the evidence adduced by the complainant and the contentions of the versions filed by the opposite parties before the Forum below. The Forum below allowed the complaint and set aside the demand notice of Rs. 10,750 dated 13.9.2004 issued by the opposite parties and ordered no costs and compensation. The opposite parties prefer this appeal from the above impugned order passed by the Forum below.
The Counsel for the appellant argued on the grounds of the appeal memorandum. Heard both sides of the Counsel for the appellant and respondent. This Commission is seeing that the complaint is an elderly old lady of 75 years at the time of filing the complaint. She got electrical connection to her house from the opposite party in the year 1995 under OYEC scheme for paying an amount of Rs. 1,250 on 24.11.1995 as demanded by the 3rd opposite party. After 9 years on the 2nd week of September, 2004 the complainant received a notice from the opposite party demanding a further payment of Rs. 10,750 towards balance OYEC charge. According to the complaint the present demand notice of Rs. 10,750 (Ext P1) after a period of 9 years is a penal bill and in a huge deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The suggestion of the Counsel for the appellants is that the connection had been sanctioned to the complainant for the construction 35 metres of weather proof portion only. But on inspection it was found that the service connection to the complainant had been effected by drawing 43 metres of weather proof wire and as per existing rules the OYEC amount for the construction of service portion beyond 35 metres to 65 metres the cost is Rs. 12,000 Hence the complainant is liable to pay the Ext. P1 bill amount. It is very interesting that the appellant opposite parties got an instant illusion after the lapse of long 9 years that the cost of weather proof wire was not Rs. 1,250 but Rs. 10,750. After a long 9 years, how the opposite parties have raised such a claim towards very elderly woman. At present she attained 84 years. This is nothing but a laches and irregularity from the part of the staff of the office of the opposite parties. Instead of taking stringent action against the concerned officials, the appellant -opposite parties are targeting against the poor old lady. It is quite unfortunate and contempt. The appellant -opposite parties have not taken any appropriate disciplinary actions against their concerned subordinate officials and collect the above said amount from their own pocket. The appellant/opposite party (KSEB) is running by the money of the consumers. It is a public fund. Anybody committed offence like mischief they are answerable to the law. Why the appellants are simply protecting such subordinate officers. This Commission is seeing that the order passed by the Forum below is strictly in accordance with law and evidence and it legally sustainable.



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