KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.705/04 JUDGMENT DATED.05.08.08 PRESENT:- SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1.The Secretary, K.S.E.B., Pattom, Trivandrum. 2.The Asst.Engineer, Electrical Major Section, : APPELLANTS Ettumanoor. (By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair) Vs A.J.George, Vellaramkalayil, : RESPONDENT Thellakom.P.O., Kottayam. (By Adv.Jose.J.Chervil) JUDGMENT SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER By the order dated.9.7.04 in OP.No.352/03 of CDRF, Kottayam the opposite parties are under orders to cancel Ext.A1 bill amounting to Rs.3,97,223/- and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- along with cost of Rs.750/-. It was also directed to issue fresh bill for the period from 10.04.03 without any sur-charge and it is aggrieved by the said order of the Forum that the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties calling for the interference of this Commission. 2. The case of the complainant before the Forum was that he is a consumer of the opposite party and he is running a small scale industry for earning livelihood. He was remitting electricity charges regularly and the multiplication factor of the meter installed in the premises is 20. During April-May 2003 the complainant’s meter was replaced and later on 15.11.03 the Assistant Engineer of the opposite parties inspected the premises. It is alleged that on 17th November 2003 invoice was served on him for an amount of Rs.3,97,223/- which is alleged to be the energy charge short assessed for the period from 8/01 to 9/03. The complainant’s case is that he is not liable to pay the above said amount and prayed for directions to the opposite parties to cancel the bill. 3. Resisting the case of the complainant, the second opposite party filed version for himself and for the first opposite party stating that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of section 2 (1) (d) (ii) as amended by Act.62 of 2002. It is stated by the opposite parties that the complainant’s firm is under tariff LT IV where so many laborers are being employed and the averment in the complaint that he is earning a livelihood is against the true facts of the case as the complainant is making profit out of the venture. It was also submitted by the opposite parties that the CT ratio was 40 and unfortunately instead of taking the multiplication factor as 40 it was mistakenly noted as 20 with effect from 8/01 which was noted in 8/03 during the time of inspection by the second opposite party. The opposite parties contended that there was no merit in the complaint and they prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 4. The evidence consisted of the affidavits filed by the complainant and the second opposite party. Ext.A1 was marked on the side of the complainant and Exts.B1 to B4 were marked on the side of the opposite parties. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted before us that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act and that the bill amount shown as per Ext.A1 is only a reassessment and recalculation for the period from 8/01 to 9/03. He has also argued before us that a site mahazar was prepared which was proved before the forum as Ext.B3 by filing the affidavit of the person who prepared the mahazar. It is also his case that the opposite parties are empowered to rectify the mistake as soon as it was found out. He has also attacked the findings of the forum that the opposite parties are entitled for re-assessment only from 10.04.03. It is his very case that as per Ext.B4 copy of the meter reading register it is noted that the meter was changed on 8.8.01 and it was from that month onwards that the multiplication factor went wrong till 8.8.01. The meter was having the ratio of 100/5 and the multiplication factor was 20. But when the meter was changed within the ratio of 200/5 the multiplication factor ought to have been 40 and hence he prayed for setting aside the order of the forum below. 6. On hearing the counsel for the appellants and also an perusing the documents, we find forced in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants. It is noted that the meter was changed on 8.8.01 and the multiplication factor was taken as 20. Though it is also noted that there is replacement of CT during April 2003 then again the multiplication factor is 20 till 9/03 and thereafter it is 40. The appellant’s strong case is that the CT that was installed in the premises of the complainant was having a multiplication factor of 40 and it was by mistake that they have charged at the multiplication factor of 20. The respondent/complainant has also no case that the meter installed was having a multiplication factor 20 though there is a vague allegation that the multiplication factor applied for billing is 20. It is true that the opposite parties were issuing lists using the multiplication factor 20 till 8.8.01. It is also noted that the mistake was noted only during the inspection conducted by the opposite parties on 14.11.03. The mahazar prepared by the opposite parties is also proved by the affidavit filed by the Assistant Engineer who has reaffirmed the statements made in the site mahazar. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant has also advanced the argument that the complainant is not a consumer as he had employed some laborers in the factory. It is also contended by him that the complainant was not running the factory exclusively for earning his livelihood. However such contentions of the appellants cannot be accepted by us since the complainant himself has stated the he was running the firm exclusively for earning livelihood which is reiterated in the affidavit. The opposite parties/appellants did not produce any evidence to show otherwise. It is to be taken into consideration that for earning a livelihood, only one person alone need not work in the firm from morning to evening and he can seek the assistance of others also for helping him in the running of the firm. The opposite parties have to prove that there are other sources also enabling the complainant to earn a livelihood even without the earning from the avocation under challenge. 8. From the forgoing discussion it is made clear that the complainant in the instant case can be treated as a consumer. But the bill issued towards the reassessment of the current charges by taking the multiplication factor as 40 from 8/01 to 9/03 can only be upheld. The appellants/opposite parties were only rectifying a mistake of the charges for the energy consumed by the respondent/complainant and in the said circumstances it is our considered view that the forum has gone wrong in canceling Ext.A1. However as the mistake was found out only very late, the opposite parties are directed not to collect any sur-charge or other penal charge from the complainant in the light of the fact that he was agitating the matter throughout and had a favorable order in the forum below. In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order dated.9.7.04 of CDRF, Kottayam in OP.No.352/03. However the appellants are directed to give suitable installments to the respondent/complainant for the payment of the bill amount of Rs.3,27,223/- which can be from next month from the date of receipt of this order. In the nature and circumstances of the case the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER R.AV
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN | | 
