KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMIISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Appeal No.481/2005 JUDGMENT DATED : 04.03.2010 PRESENT:- SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1. The Asst.Engineer, Electricity Office, Kumbanad.P.O., 2. The Asst.Ex.Engineeer, : APPELLANTS Electrical Major Section, Vennikulam.P.O. 3. The Chief Engineer, K.S.E.B. Board, Thiruvananthapuram 4. The secretary, K.S.E.B. Board, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv.Sri.B.Sakthidharan Nair) Vs Anie Thomas, Cheriyamedathil House, : RESPONDENT Kumbanad.P.O., Koipuram Village, Pathanamthitta District. JUDGMENT SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER This appeal is preferred against the order dated 24.08.2004 of CDRF, Pathanamthitta in O.P.285/01 wherein the opposite parties are under directions to cancel Ext.P7 bill and to issue a bill for six months based on the consumption at 171 units per month with further directions to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost. The 3rd opposite party was found unnecessary in the proceedings. Hence the other three opposite parties are made liable for the payments. The complainant had approached the Forum stating that she was a consumer of the opposite parties and that she had been paying the regular electricity charges at the rate of Rs.174/- per month as her average consumption was only 150 units per month. She had also submitted that consequent to the introduction of spot billing, she was served with a bill for Rs.406/- for two months where as it was her case that she ought to have been given a bill for 312 units only. However it was her further case that on 29.08.01 a bill dated 4.08.01 was issued directing her to pay Rs.22,264/- to be paid on or before 13.09.2001 failing which the service would be disconnected. She had submitted before the Forum she was not liable to pay the said amount for the reason that the demand was made for more than six months. Submitting that there was deficiency of service, she prayed for directions to the opposite parties to cancel the additional bills with compensation and cost. The opposite parties filed version contenting that they had given a connection to the Consumer No.7132 in the name of C.T.Thomas and not in the name of the complainant. They submitted that provisional invoice card for Rs.174 per month was for consumption of 30 units per month and the complainant had consumed 4272 units for 31 months from 08/98 to 03/2001 and the bill issued was the additional charges and also the corrected amounts for bi- monthly periods for 05/2001 and 07/2001. It was submitted that the complainant had been remitting the charges under LT 1 A tariff where as she was liable to pay the charges under LT VII A tariff and it was only a correction of the mistake crept in and the complainant was liable to pay the additional bill for Rs.22,264/-. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of complaint PW1 and Exts.A1 to A10. On the side of the complainant a witness was examined as PW2. On the side of the opposite parties Ext.B1 and B1(a) were marked. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued before us that the Forum below had gone wrong in directing the opposite parties to cancel the bill for Rs.22,264/- and to issue a bill for only 6 months taking averages as 171 units per month. It is his very case that the additional bill was issued for the excess consumption made by the complainant for the period from 8/98 to 3/2001 and also the arrear payments for the bi- monthly periods of 5/01 and 7/01. He has argued before us that the opposite parties/appellants are entitled to realize the said arrears for 31 months and rectify their mistake in collecting the charges under LT I A tariff as the complainant was consuming the electricity under LT VII A tariff. He has also advanced the contention that Exts.A8 and A9 would show that the complainant had given the application for change of tariff only on 23.08.01 and 04.09.2001 respectively and in such a situation charging the electricity charges under LT VII A tariff can be justified. He has also submitted that the complainant’s tariff was changed with effect from 01.10.2001 on payment of the required fees by the complainant. The learned counsel submitted that the Forum ought not have allowed any compensation or any costs on the ground that the opposite parties had not committed any deficiency of service. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and also on perusing the records we find that Ext.A7 bill was issued by the 1st opposite party stating that it is the charges for the additional consumption from 8/98 to 3/01 and also the additional charges for the bi-monthly periods of 5/01 and 7/01. It is also seen that the additional bill was issued consequent to the taking of meter reading after the introduction of spot billing and also on detecting that the complaint was charged under domestic tariff where as the consumption was for construction purpose. On perusing Ext.A8 and A9, it is found that the complainant has given application for change on tariff only on the dates mentioned therein ie, on 23.08.2001 and 04.09.2001 respectively. Ext.A9 is clear and it throws light on the request of the registered consumer that his tariff be changed to LT 1 A from LT VII A. It is also seen that as per Ext.A10 the consumer had remitted the required application fee for change of tariff and as per the said request the opposite parties have changed the tariff with effect from 01.10.01. In the said facts and circumstance we do not find any error or illegality in the action of the opposite parties in issuing the bills under LT VII A tariff and for the additional consumption made by the complainant for the period from 8/98 to 3/01 and for the bi-monthly periods of 5/01 and 7/01. The Forum’s direction to issue revised bill only for six months is also seen unsustainable, on the ground that the opposite parties are entitled to realize charges for more than six months under circumstances which warrant the issue of bills for a period of more than six months. In the instant case it is seen that the complainant was remitting charges for 30 units only per month as per the provisional invoice card issued to her. It is also noted that consequent to the introduction of spot billing, the bills for bi-monthly periods were issued and at that point of time the opposite parties had detected the mistake which had been subsequently corrected. We do not find any error in the said action of the opposite parties. Having found that the bill for Rs.22,264/- is sustainable the order of the Forum below in the directions to pay compensation and cost are also liable to be set aside. We do so accordingly. In the result the appeal is allowed. The order dated 24.08.2004 in O.P.285/01 of CDRF, Pathanamthitta is set aside. In the facts and circumstance of the present appeal, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Kb. | 
