K S E B BURNASSERY DIVISION Vs. SAMEER PALLIYAKATH
LAWS(KERCDRC)-2009-12-1
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on December 09,2009

K S E B Burnassery Division Appellant
VERSUS
Sameer Palliyakath Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THE above appeal is preferred from the order dated 27.2.2006 passed by CDRF, Kannur in OP No. 251/03. The complaint in the said OP was filed by the respondent/complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Assistant Engineer, KSEB, Burnassery Division, Kannur in not refunding a sum of Rs. 30,000 deposited by the complainant for getting electric connection to the building bearing No. T.V. 33/877, 878 and 879. The complainant deposited the said sum of Rs. 30,000 as per the direction given by the Hon ble High Court in OP No. 32311/01. It was also directed that the said amount will be refunded by the opposite party on disposal of the complaint in OP 304/01 on the file of the CDRF, Kannur. But the opposite party failed to refund the said sum of Rs. 30,000 on getting the electricity charges due from the complainant in OP 304/01. Hence the complaint in OP 251/03 was filed for getting refund of the said sum of Rs. 30,000 with compensation and cost.
(2.)THE opposite party entered appearance and filed written version contending that the complainant in OP 304/01 paid a sum of Rs. 1,07,976 under the Revenue Recovery Proceedings initiated against him and that the opposite party is only liable to refund the deposited amount of Rs. 30,000 to the complainant only on disposal of the complaint in OP 304/01. It is further contended that as per the direction of the Hon ble High Court electric connection was given to the complainant and that the OP 304/01 is pending for disposal. It was also contended that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost
(3.)BASED on the pleadings, the Forum below framed the following points for consideration:
(1) Whether there is any deficiency in service?

(2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount and compensation?

The complainant filed proof affidavit. No other evidence was adduced from the side of the complainant. The opposite party did not adduce any evidence. On an appreciation of the facts, circumstance and the affidavit filed by the complainant, the Forum below passed the impugned order directing the opposite party to refund Rs. 30,000 to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the order with a default clause for payment of interest @ 12% per annum from the date of default till realization. The claim of the complainant for compensation and cost were disallowed. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed by the opposite party in the said OP 251/03.



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