Kerala

Kasaragod

CC/08/152

Shri.Gopalakrishna Yuvaka Kalakendra(Regd) - Complainant(s)

Versus

Assistant Engineer - Opp.Party(s)

Shrikantha Shetty.K.

06 Jan 2009

ORDER


IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
OLD S.P. OFFICE, KASARAGOD
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/152

Shri.Gopalakrishna Yuvaka Kalakendra(Regd)
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Assistant Engineer
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. K.T.Sidhiq 2. P.P.Shymaladevi 3. P.Ramadevi

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. Shri.Gopalakrishna Yuvaka Kalakendra(Regd)

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Shrikantha Shetty.K.

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




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.

D.o.F:29/8/08

D.o.O:10/12/08

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  KASARAGOD

                                   CC.NO. 152/08

                 Dated this, the 10th day of December 2008

PRESENT:

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                   : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI             : MEMBER

SMT.P.P.SYAMALADEVI  : MEMBER

 

Kamalaksha, President,

Shri Gopalakrishna Yuvaka Kalakendra  :   Complainant

(regd) Bandiyodu, Mangalpady Po.

Kasaragod.

(Adv.Srekanth Shetty,Kasaragod)

 

Assistant Engineer,

Electrical Section , KSEB,                         : Opposite party

Uppala  PO, Kasaragod.

(Adv.P.Raghavan,Kasaragod.)

 

 

 

                                                               ORDER

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT

 

        Complainant  is a registered  sports/arts club having electricity connection with  connected load of 480 watts. It is a single phase connection. The connection to the club was formerly  charged under LT I(b) but it was changed to tariff  LT VII(A) from 3/06 onwards.  Under LT VII(A) the rate of  current charge per unit is higher than that of LT I(b).  Eventhough complainant requested to convert the tariff owing to the huge amount of current bill under LT VII(A) category the opposite party did not respond.  Hence ,monthly current bill became a burden to the complainant and it resulted in non payment of electricity bills.  Therefore, opposite party disconnected the connection in January 2007 and it was reconnected  during Nov.2007 after payment  of Rs.7323/-.  Again the complainant requested to change the tariff but was no heed.  The lawyer notice caused  for this purpose  also not  replied .  Hence, complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.

 

2.   Opposite party filed version.  According to opposite   party, the complainant never approached  the opposite party to convert the tariff from LTVII(A) to LT I (b).  The complainant has been paying electricity charges under tariff LT VII(A) upto November 2007.  From January 2008 onwards the current  charges are pending.  An amount of Rs.1539/- is pending upto September 2008 as arrears.  So the opposite party gave notice of disconnection.  After receipt of notice of  disconnection  complainant filed  this  complaint.

 

3.    Complainant filed Exts. A1 to A12.  Both sides heard and documents perused.

4.      As per Exts.A1&A2, the complainant had paid electricity charges under category LT I (b) but as per Ext.A3 dtd.19/9/06 the  tariff is seen changed to LT VII(A).  How and why the tariff is changed from LT I(b) to LT VII(A) is  nowhere mentioned either  in the bill  or in the version filed.

      Changing tariff of electricity from lower tariff to higher tariff without any cause and thereby compelling the consumer to pay huge amount towards current charges is serious deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  The contention of opposite party that the complainant never approached  opposite party to change the tariff is not believable.  Nobody will be enjoy to pay higher rate of current charges without any  change  in circumstances.  Therefore, whatever the amount collected under the higher tariff has to be refunded.  The electricity connection if any disconnected, for non- payment of electricity charges under the   higher tariff is liable to be reconnected without any reconnection fee.

 

       Therefore, we allow the complaint and the opposite party is directed to change the tariff of complainant from LT VII(A) to LT I(b) and to  refund the difference in amount  already  collected under LT VII(A).  We further direct the opposite party to refund the amount collected as per Ext.A8 ie Rs.7323/- to complainant,  which the complainant  paid for restoring the electricity connection  after  adjusting the amount , if the connections would have been under category LT I(b) during that period.   The opposite party directed to restore the electric connection forthwith. The opposite party also directed to pay Rs.2000/- towards the cost of these proceedings.  Time for compliance   is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.

     Sd/                                                   Sd/                                         Sd/

 MEMBER                                        MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

Exts:

A1 to A6-electricity bills

A7-7/11/07- Dismantling notice

A8-Receipt of Rs.7323/-

A9-30/4/08- lawyer notice

A10-Copy of  certificate of registration of societies

A12- postal acknowledgment

 

      Sd/                                            Sd/                                               Sd/

MEMBER                                   MEMBER                          PRESIDENT

eva/

                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                       Senior Superintendent

 




......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi