THE SECRETARY, KSEB PATTOM Vs. M.K.YOHANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are preferred from the common order dated 10.11.2004 of CDRF, Pathnamthitta in OPs 274 of 2002 and 275 of 2002 whereby the opposite parties are under directions to give reconnection to the complainant on payment of the amounts as per the bills issued by them without realizing reconnection charges and to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation along with Rs. 1,500 as costs and also to adjust the amount of Rs. 65 and Rs.20 as per Ex A1 and A1(a) bills and to pay Rs. 1,000 as compensation and Rs. 500 as cost in the respective complaints.

(2.) The complainant has approached the Forum by filing OP 274 of 2002 with the grievances that he had a three phase agricultural connection with consumer No. 2875 and that though supply was disconnected on 4.7.2001 due to theft of electric line rod, the supply was not restored even after request and inspite of the fact that there was no supply, he was served with a notice demanding the payment of electricity charges on 23.12.2002. Alleging deficiency in service the complaint was filed praying for directions to pay him a sum of Rs.40,000 towards compensation for the loss suffered by him. In OP 275 of 2002 the complaint was filed alleging that the opposite parties did not take any steps to improve the low voltage and it was further alleged that he had suffered a loss of Rs. 50,000 for a period of 1 ¼ years due to the low voltage. It is for getting a direction to pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation that the complaint was filed.

(3.) The opposite parties filed versions in both the complaints. In OP 274 of 2002 the opposite parties contended that the supply was disconnected in July 2001 consequently to the falling of a rubber tree in the three phase line thereby a span rod was broken and fell on the land and on knowing the incident and to avoid accident the supply was disconnected immediately. It was admitted that the opposite parties could restore the supply only after a period of one month and with regard to the complaint that the complainant had no electricity supply, it was submitted that the Board officials could not detect the defects as the electrical instruments which were installed inside the pump house could not be inspected due to the fact that it was kept locked permanently by the complainant. It was also submitted that a notice was issued on 18.9.2002 informing the complainant that the electric connection would be permanently dismantled if the arrears were not paid and further that due to non -payment the supply was permanently dismantled on 8.1.2003 after issuing registered notice to the complainant. Contending that there was no deficiency in service the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs. In the version filed in response to OP 275 of 2002, the opposite parties contended that the Board officials have taken steps to connect transformers for giving three phase connection and that there was sufficient voltage in the line. It was also submitted that except the complaint of the complainant, there were no other complaints regarding low voltage and in such a situation it was the contention that the complaint was to be dismissed.