C.U.PAPPACHAN Vs. THILAKAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 19th January, 2011 in E.A. 28/10 which was filed under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act for initiating action against the offender for his failure to comply with the order passed by the Forum below directing restoration of the electricity connection to the complainant /petitioner,<RP>Thilakan</RP>. It is against the said order, the present appeal is filed.

(2.) When this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for the respondent/complainant. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant/first opposite party, the offender in E.A 28/10. It was submitted that there was no willful negligence or disrespect on the part of the offender, the appellant herein. It is also submitted that the electricity connection was dismantled and so the offender was not in a position to restore the connection. It is further submitted that with much difficulties, the offender, Asst. Engineer of Electrical Section, Pazhanji has given electricity connection to the complainant on 4.3.2011. The offender, the appellant has also filed an affidavit stating that there was no willful or intentional fault or negligence on his part in restoring the electricity connection to the premises of the complainant. He also requested for granting pardon.

(3.) The facts and circumstances of the case would show that the appellant/offender failed to comply with the interim order passed in C.C. 112/10 and thereby the appellant failed to restore the electricity connection to the premises of the complainant. The materials of record would show that there was some sort of failure on the part of the complainant/consumer and it is on account of that failure, the electricity connection to the premises of the complainant was dis connected and subsequently dismantled. It is true that it was not so easy for the appellant/first opposite party to restore electricity connection which was dismantled. So, the delay in complying with the order passed by the Forum below is also to be taken in to consideration. Moreover, the appellant realized the fault on his part and prayed for pardon. It is also to be noted that the appellant is an official of the K.S.E.B and no purpose will be served in imposing punishment of imprisonment for a term of one month and fine of Rs. 2,500/- Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Commission is pleased to set aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below in E.A. 28/10 and by accepting the affidavit filed by the appellant. The appellant is relieved from undergoing imprisonment and payment of fine. The appeal is allowed with severe warning to the appellant that he should be very much vigilant and diligent in future in complying with the order passed by a statutory authority like the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum. In the result the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.01.2011 passed by CDRF, Thrissur in E.A. 28/10 in C.C. 112/10 is set aside. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. It is made clear that the interim order passed by the Forum below is to be in force till the disposal of the Consumer complaint in C.C. 112/10.