Decided on June 12,2009

K S E Board And Ors Appellant
P G Koshy Panicker Respondents


- (1.)THE above appeal is preferred from the order dated 5.11.2004 passed by the CDRF, Kollam in OP No. 298/03. The complaint therein was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellant/opposite parties for getting the demand notice dated 15.7.2003 for Rs. 20,860 cancelled. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing P1 demand notice and also action on the part of the opposite parties to covert agricultural connection from LTV to LTVII
A. The opposite parties entered appearance and submitted that the complainant misused the energy supplied for agricultural purpose by using the energy for construction purpose. They also relied on the site mahazar prepared by the 3rd opposite party/ Sub Engineer and argued for the position that the issuance of P1 demand notice for Rs. 20,860 is only a justifiable action. Thereby the opposite parties requested for dismissal of the complaint.

(2.)BEFORE the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1 and a witness was examined as PW2. Exts. P1 to P7 documents were also marked on the side of the complainant. From the side of the opposite parties DWs 1 to 3 were examined and D1 to D6 documents were marked. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below accepted the case of the complainant and thereby passed the impugned order cancelling P1 demand notice dated 15.7.2003 and directing to pay compensation of Rs. 1,000 with costs of Rs. 1,000. Hence the present appeal by the opposite parties.
(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. He much relied on Ext. Dl site mahazar prepared by the 3rd opposite party Sub Engineer of the electrical Sub Division. Thereby the appellants requested for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. -
The points that arise for consideration are: (i) Is there occurred any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants/opposite parties in issuing PI demand notice and the attempt on the part of the opposite parties to change the tariff from LTV to LT VII A?

(ii) Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 5.11.2004 passed by CDRF, Kollam in OP 298/ 03?

Point Nos. 1 and 2:

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