STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/226/2019 null EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,KSEB PRESENT ADDRESS - K.S.E.B, Perinthalmanna, Malappuram ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus ASKAR ALI N PRESENT ADDRESS - Nechottu house, Valambur- P.O, Pattikad via, Pin. 679325 Malappuram represented by his power of attorney holder Haris Khan S/o Moideen, Pilakkadan house, Valambur P.o, Via , Malappuram PIn. 679375 ,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: INVALID DATETIME

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No. 226/2019 JUDGEMENT DATED : 27.01.2025 (Against the order in C.C.No.109/2018 on the files of DCDRC, Malappuram)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER APPELLANT:

Executive Engineer, KSEB Perunthalmanna, Malappuram (by Adv. Aniyoor K. Venugopalan Nair)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Akbar Ali N., Nechottu House, Valambur P.O., Pattikad (via) Malappuram –

679 375

(by Adv. Nithya S.)

JUDGEMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant in C.C.No.109/2018 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (for short ‘the District Commission’).

2. The complainant is the consumer of a domestic electricity connection.

The complainant was working abroad and he used to visit his native place once in two years. Since the complainant’s house was closed, ‘Nil’ bill was issued for eleven months. After fifteen days of the arrival of the complainant, the meter reading was taken and a bill for Rs.10,047/-(Rupees Ten Thousand and Forty Seven only) was issued to the complainant. The complainant contended that the complainant never consumed so much of electricity. The complainant requested the opposite party to check the meter. However, the opposite party was not prepared to check the meter initially. But due to the pressure of the complainant, the opposite party had taken the meter for inspection, after disconnecting the electricity connection. The opposite party did not provide a substitute meter during the period of inspection. Because of the disconnection of electricity, the wife of the complainant, who was pregnant and the mother of the complainant had to suffer a lot. In the said circumstances, the complainant filed the above complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

3. The opposite party filed version contending that the complainant had consumed a total quantity of 1209 units of electrical energy. Together with other charges, the amount in the bill was Rs.10,047/- (Rupees Ten Thousand and Forty Seven only). The meter was not having any defect. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

4. Before the District Commission, proof affidavit was filed by the complainant. Exhibits A1 to A3 were also marked for the complainant. No proof affidavit was filed by the opposite party. No evidence was also adduced by the opposite party.

5. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission directed the opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation for the deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation for the mental agony and Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) as costs.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed.

7. Heard.

8. It is not disputed that a bill for Rs.10,047/-(Rupees Ten Thousand and Forty Seven only) was issued to the complainant towards the consumption of electricity for a period of eleven months. It is also not disputed that the complainant had taken a contention that the meter was defective and in the said circumstances, the complainant had made a request to the oppo