Decided on July 31,2009

Annamma Chacko Respondents


M.V.VISWANATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER - (1.)THE above appeal is preferred from the order dated 08 -04 -2008 passed by the CDRF, Wayanad, Kalpetta in CC No. 02/06. The complaint therein was filed for getting compensation of Rs. 10,000/ - on the ground of deficiency of service and also for getting refund of Rs. 7,733/ - with the transportation expenses of Rs. 1,400/ -. The opposite parties entered appearance and denied the deficiency in service. They contended that they collected a sum of Rs. 23,200/ - for giving electric connection under OYEC and while drawing the line there was objection from the side of the neighbouring property owner in erecting electric post in her property and so the electric supply connection was given by using two electric posts and that the 3rd post is lying in the property of the complainant. They justified their action in denying refund of Rs. 7,733/ -.
(2.)BEFORE the Forum below one witness was examined as PW1 and Ext A1 to A9 documents were marked from the side of the complainant. The Assistant Executive Engineer of the KSEB was examined as OPW1 No document was produced from the side of the opposite parties. On an appreciation on the evidence on record the Forum below passed the impugned order directing the opposite parties to pay to the complainant Rs. 7,733/ - being the price of the electric post not erected along with other expenses charged on the complainant with cost of Rs. 1,000/ -. The opposite party has also been directed to pay compensation of Rs 1000/ - Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is preferred.
(3.)WHEN this appeal was taken up for final hearing there was no representation for the respondent /complainant. We heard the learned Counsel for the appellants/opposite parties. He submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. It is argued that the Forum below has gone wrong in taking Rs. 23,200/ - as the cost of three electric posts that the said amount is towards the cost of three electric posts and the cost of other fittings including the cost of 20 metres of weather proof wire and labour charges. So the appellants requested for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. He also canvassed for the position that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 08 -04 -2008 passed by the CDRF, Wayanad Kalpetta in CC No. 02/06?

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