KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.274/2022

JUDGEMENT DATED: 23.12.2022

(Against the Order in C.C.No.284/2018 of DCDRC, Thiruvananthapuram)

PRESENT:

APPELLANT:

(Party in person)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

JUDGEMENT

SRI. RANJIT R. : MEMBER

            Complainant has come up in appeal aggrieved by the dismissal of his complaint by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram (in short the District Forum) in C.C.No.284/2018 dated 14.03.2022.  The District Forum dismissed the complaint for default.

          2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that, the complainant was regularly paying the electricity charges of his residence without default.  While so the Kerala State Electricity Board metre became faulty and the matter was informed to the Kerala State Electricity Board Authorities.  But they did not make any arrangement to change the faulty metre.  Instead of changing the metre the  Kerala State Electricity Board on 14.06.2018 served him with a bill of Rs.7,571/-(Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy One) to be paid as electricity charges.  He was not liable to pay as it was not made as per his actual consumption of the electricity.  Even though he had made a complaint to the Kerala State Electricity Board Authorities as regard to this exorbitant bill, they did not respond to his requests.  Hence he filed the complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to cancel his bill.

          3.       The opposite party filed version denying the case of the complainant.  They contended that during the metre faulty period, bills were issued as per the previous average consumption of the consumer.  However, as per the audit report by the Regional Office an assessment bill was issued for Rs.7,571/-(Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy One) as per average unit of Rs.535/-(Rupees Five Hundred and Thirty Five) bimonthly.  On receiving a complaint by the complainant, the bill was revised and the revised bill for Rs.5,651/-(Rupees Five Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty One) was issued to the complainant on 16.07.208.  The complainant is liable to remit this amount as the energy was consumed by the complainant.  Thus the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

          4.       The complaint was posted for evidence of the complainant.  Several opportunities were given to the complainant to appear and file affidavit.  But he did not appear or file affidavit, even after a specific direction for appearance.  In these circumstances the District Commission dismissed the complaint for default.  Aggrieved by this order the complainant has preferred this appeal.

          5.       Heard both parties and perused the records.

          6.       The complainant who was present in person would contend that he is a physically handicapped person.  While the complaint was pending before the District Commission he had undergone a total knee replacement surgery and was taking rest.  He has produced medical records to substantiate his contentions. He would contend that he was further not aware of the postings of his complaint.  The District Commission passed a non-speaking order without considering the merits.  He urges that an opportunity may be given to seek a decision on merits in the complaint by leading evidence.

          7.       The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer of the complainant contending that many opportunities were given to the complainant to adduce evidence.  There was clear laches on the part of the complainant in prosecuting his case.  He prays for dismissal of the appeal.

          8.       A perusal of the records shows that though sufficient time was given by the District Commission to adduce evidence, the complainant did not turn up or file any affidavit.  There was clear laches on the part of the complainant in prosecuting his case.  This has led the District Commission to dismiss the complaint for default.  However, perusing the medical records produced by the appellant along with the appeal memorandum, we find that the appellant is a physically handicapped person and had undergone a total knee replacement surgery and was taking bed rest after surgery. This is the reason for his non-appearance before the District Commission.  But he did not make arrangement to represent his case, on his behalf, before the District Commission and that has led the District Commission to dismiss to the complaint for default.  Even though we are not fully satisfied with the reasons that are put forward by the complainant for not adducing the evidence before the District Commission, since he was bedridden after the surgery and bearing in mind the principle that every case as far as possible, should be decided on the merits, we are inclined to remand the matter for fresh disposal accepting the explanation offered by the complainant.

          In the result appeal is allowed.  The order of the District Commission is set aside.  The matter is remanded for fresh trial after giving opportunities to both parties to adduce evidence if any.   The District Commission shall dispose of the complaint as expeditiously as possible.  Parties to suffer their respective costs.

SL