NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2058/2010

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

UMMAR K.H. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. M.T. GEORGE

27 Jul 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 2058 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/02/2010 in Appeal No. 736/2005 of the State Commission Kerala)
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR.Vaidhuthi Bhavan, PattomTrivandrumKerala2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICTITY BOARDThiruvallaAlappuzhaKerala ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. UMMAR K.H.Kothachiraparayil, Paippadu, Pallickachira P.O.KottayamKerala ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :MR. M.T. GEORGE
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 27 Jul 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Heard Counsel for the Petitioner. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in Sub-Divisional Officer, PHBVNL V/s. Dharam Pal (2006)12 SCC 222. The bill for Rs.16,158/- issued by the present Petitioner was set aside by the District Forum . The said order was challenged by the present Petitioner before the State Commission. The State Commission confirmed the said order except that the interest awarded was set aside and the amount of Rs.16,158/- was ordered to be adjusted against the future bills. The State Commission has given 6 to 7 reasons in support of impugned order. The said reasons are found in paragraph 5 which are as under:- 1. The case of the Petitioner that the complaint book had been removed by the complainant has been disbelieve. 2. The complainant had reported that the meter was faulty on 5.5.2002. 3. The complainant has produced an article published in newspaper by powrasamithy of which the complainant was active member. 4. Assistant Engineer conducted inspection and seized the meter form the house of complainant but it was not sent for testing to the Electrical Inspector as there was no tampering as such. 5. It was also noticed that the seizure of the meter and the last meter reading at the time of seizure of the meter is not recorded in the mahazar. 6. The version of the complainant was found to be trustworthy. The reasoning given by the State Commission is sound. In view of this, we are not inclined to interfere or entertain this revision. The revision is dismissed with no order as to costs.


......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................VINAY KUMARMEMBER