(2) ORDER R.Vijayakumar, Member. This is a complaint filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act. The complainant’s case is that abusing their powers, opposite parties unilaterally changed the tariff from LT 1 @ to LT 7 A and disconnected his electric connection without any prior notice. On getting the bill dated: 15.03.04 in the changed tariff rate, complainant made a complaint to the first opposite party. He had directed by the first opposite party to remit the amount and assured that the excess amount will be adjusted in future bills. Against the first opposite parties assurance, on 19.05.07 also the consumer was issued with a bill in the higher tariff rate. The complainant again lodged a complaint on 21.05.07 before first opposite party. On denial of remitting the huge amount in LT VIIA tariff the opposite parties disconnected electric supply in the premises of the complainant on 20.06.07. The act of opposite party amounts to (3) deficiency in service. It caused much pain and mental agony to the complainant. The opposite parties are liable to compensate. Hence the complaint is filed for cancellation of the unsustainable and illegal procedure of opposite party, for the refund of excess amount received from the complainant to re instate the electric supply bearing consumer no.8923 and for getting. Compensation Rs.5000/- and cost Rs.2000/-. The opposite party’s case is that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complaint may be dismissed inlamine. The consumer no.8923 under Electrical Section, Parippally was effected in 1@ tariff. But during inspection it is found that the complainant is using electricity for business purpose. The act of complainant is a clear violation of the provisions of electric supply Act 2003. During 01/2007 the second opposite party noted that the consumption of Consumer No.8923 has noticeably increased. The average consumption for 01/05 to 05/06 was 25 unit and it increased to 230 unit with effect from 07/06. In (4) the local enquiry of second opposite party it is revealed that the 1 @ tariff is not being used for residential purpose but for the godown of Bakery and Borma in the ground floor. Accordingly the first opposite party and two others inspect the premises but that the premises was locked and hence could not prepare a site mahassor. On enquiry it reveals that the said building is completely used for business purpose and that the complainant or his family is not residing in that building. Then the first opposite party prepared a notice and served it to the complainant on 22.01.07. But he refused to received and so it was pasted in the said premises. The first opposite party then issued a provisional assessment on 15.03.07 in LT VII A tariff for unauthorized use of electricity. The complainant remitted the amount without any objection. He had not filed any appeal before the Appellate Authority or CGRF, Kottarakkara. The bill dated: 19.05.07 was also issued in LT VIIA tariff. But he complainant did not remit the amount of that bill amount before the disconnection date ie; 10.06.07. Hence the supply was (5) disconnected on 20.06.07 by first opposite party. Final reading could not be taken because the door of premises is locked. The service was disconnected after giving due notice to the party. The complainant has three electric connections near to each other in Parippally Junction. Consumer No.8923 IA tariff, Consumer No.3920 VII A tariff and Consumer No.14470 in LT IV tariff. The Consumer No.7835 VII A tariff was dismantled on 13.04.06 after new connection in LT IV Consumer No.14470 was effected on 12.04.06. After dismantling the service connection No.7835 on 04.06 it is noted from the office records that the consumption in Consumer No.8923 IA tariff has drastically increased. During 01/07 the second opposite party noted an abnormal increase in the consumption of Consumer No.8923 asked the complainant to open the door of the building but he did not do so. The tariff was changed as per direction of first opposite party after inspection and enquiry. (6) There is no deficiency in service from the part of opposite party. The complaint is illmotivated and misleading. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed with compensatory cost. The complainant filed affidavit. From the side of complainant, PW1 was examined and Exts. P1 to P7 were marked. From the side of opposite parties, DW1 was examined and Exts. D1 and D2 marked. The points that would arise for consideration are : (1) Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties? (2) Compensation and cost. Points (1) & (2) The main allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party had unilaterally by and arbitarally disconnected the electric supply of the complainant. No documents produced to prove the unauthorized use of electricity. The opposite parties contented that it is ascertained that the domestic connection was used for borma and godown of the bakery. On seeing the note in the abnormality (7) register which was recorded by meter reader, the AE, Parippally and two others inspected and found that the premises was locked. They could not prepare a site mahassar. The AE then prepared a notice and sent it to the complainant on the same day by hand which the complainant refused to accept and hence it was pasted in the premises. It is further stated in the version that the consumption was noticeably increased. The meter reader noted in the abnormality register and he himself conducted a local enquiry and in that enquiry it reveals that the connection is not using for residential purpose and it is used for godown of bakery and borma in the ground floor. The AE subsequently issued a provisional assessment on 15.03.2007 in LT 7 A tariff for unauthorized use of electricity. It is to be noted here that the inspection was based only upon the note in the abnormality register by the meter reader and his statement in the abnormality register. No local enquiry report produced by opposite parties. There is no provision for local enquiry in the act by the meter reader. The meter reader is not a competent (8) person to conduct local enquiry. The AE & other two persons also could not enter into the premises. As the premises locked and could not prepare a site mahassar, based on an inspection out side the locked premises, how the first opposite party could came to the conclusion that the energy was used for commercial purpose? The opposite party failed to produce any evidence to prove their allegation related to the unauthorized use of electricity by the complainant .Without any convincing evidence first opposite party has done all the proceedings based on a note in the abnormality register by the meter reader who is an incompetent person to conduct such an enquiry. More over, all these opposite party’s has shown unwanted hurry in issuing the notice on the same date itself. In the version itself the opposite party had admitted that he could not conduct an inspection inside the premises because the door was locked. The opposite parties had not tried to inspect the premises on another occasion? Knowing that there is no person in the premises and the door was locked why they were try to issue the notice on the same day itself? (9) The opposite party has argued that they had pasted the notice as it was not accepted by the complainant. While cross examination, the counsel for opposite parties put the question that “ 22.01.2007/span> opposite parties —¢#176;¢¹¢#188;¢#164;¼¤¨#188;¤« ›¢¹#165;« #164;#188;® ›#710;¢#162;¿¨#188;¤« œ¤¼¤. Answer “¢#191;””. Such a contention was not raised by the opposite parties in the version or in the affidavit. It is stated in the version and affidavit that the “door was locked”. There is discrepancy in the statements that the door was locked at the time of opposite party’s arrival for inspection and on the very same day complainant refused to accept said notice at the same premises. These statements are unbelievable and it reveals the malicious intention of the opposite parties. It is pertinent to note that in Ext.D1, abnormality register it is noted that ‘“notice issued ”. Admittedly the complainant had three connections near to each other in Parippally Junction. Consumer No.8923 LT IA tariff, (10) Consumer No.3920 LT 7A tariff and Consumer No.14470 LT 4 tariff. The Consumer No.7835 7A tariff was dismanted on 13.04.2006 after new connection in LT 4, Consumer No.14470. The Learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that M/s.Biju Bakery at Parippally Junction under the proprietorship of complainant is situated in a rented building facing towards the NH-47. Building No.KP 320 situated in front by narrow by road and its is situated behind another shopping complex. On the Southern side of Biju Bakery. The borma of bakery is working at the ground floor of Building No.KP-320 Consumer No.14470 LT 4 tariff is provided for borma. While cross examination of DW1 counsel for the complainant put the question that “14470 › ˆÃˆ®#8250;¤« 8923 ¡« ›¤« ® —¢#176;¢¹¢¨Ã¼¤ œ¤¼¤?” Answer “•#162;#162;¿”. This answer of DW1 reveals that she is not particular about the electric connection of the complainant. (11) The complainant alleged that he was not served with 15 days statutory notice before disconnection. In the box DW1 has stated that they had issued statutory notice before the disconnection and the document evidencing the issuance of notice can be produced. But the opposite party had not produced any such document from which an adverse inference can be drawn. The Learned Counsel for the complainant argued that Exts D1 and D2 produced by the opposite parties have no evidentary value. Ext.D1 was submitted as the abnormality register. But on perusal it reveals that though there was a note about abnormalities, the headline of the register shows that it is a register of money orders. There is no date of entry, area code, serial no etc concerned with the alleged abnormality notice of Consumer No.8923. It is stated in the version that in the observation of second opposite party the consumption of Consumer No.8923 has noticeably increased while the average consumption for 01/05 to 05/06 was 25 units and it increased to 230 units with effect from 07/06. He had informed the first opposite party to take necessary (12) action. In his local enquiry it is revealed that the 1 A tariff is not being used for the residential purpose, but for the godown of the bakery and borma in the ground floor. The action of changing tariff from residential to commercial can not be accepted only upon the basis of second opposite party’s presumption. No evidence produced to show that increase in the consumption is due to the unauthorized use of electricity for commercial purpose. The increase in consumption alone is not a ground for change in tariff. It is the purpose of consumption and not the rate of consumption which is the determining factor of tariff as per Electricity Act. The first opposite party has stated that the building is used completely for commercial purpose. The consumer is using electricity in LT1 tariff for the last 10 years. The Learned Counsel for opposite parties argued that the building is completely used as commercial complex for housing the borma,bakery and retail shop. The Learned Counsel for opposite party further argued that no evidence is produced by the complainant to prove that he is a resident in that building. The complainant has stated in his (13) affidavit that he is using connection bearing no.8923 in domestic tariff for the last 10 years. This statement was not challenged by opposite parties. But they had alleged that the building was completely used for commercial purpose. If it is so there is no explanation as to, why the opposite parties, who were the responsible officers, ignored that fact till the alleged incident. The second opposite party, the meter reader was visiting the premises once in every two months for taking the meter reading. He had not reported the fact to the concerned authorities earlier. How the domestic tariff was allotted for electric connection in a building which was used for fully commercial purpose? The concerned officials of opposite party could not evade from the responsibility for the issuance of domestic tariff in a commercial building, with the knowledge that he is a permanent resident of another place. For all that has been discussed above, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and that the opposite parties had violated the procedures laid down in (14) Regulatiion 25 (1) G of the Code, which says 15 days prior notice is mandatory. The supply was already reconnected as per order in IA.No.94/07 restoring LT 1 (a) tariff keeping in abeyance the bill as per LT VII A tariff. In the result, the complaint is allowed. The bill as per LT 7 A Ext.P2 is hereby quashed. The opposite parties are directed to refund the excess amount collected under 7 A tariff in March 2007 and to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation and Rs.1500/- as cost. The compensation and costs will be paid to the complainant by opposite party 3 and realize the same from those who are responsible, if they choose to do so. The order is to be complied with within one month of the date of order. (15) Dated this the 23rd day of September 2010. K.Vijayakumaran :Sd/- Adv.Ravi Susha :Sd/- R.Vijayakumar :Sd/- // Forwarded by Order // Senior Superintendent Date of Filing: 25.06.2007. Date of Order: 23.09.2010. INDEX List of witness for complainant PW1 - K.Babu List of documents for complainant P1 - Receipt dtd: 23.03.07 P2 - Bill dtd: 19.05.07 P3 - Bill dtd: 17.01.07 P4 - Receipt dtd: 19.01.07 P5 - Consumer bill dtd: 12.06.07 P6 - Commission Report with mahassar P7 - Order of consumer Grievance Redressal Forum dtd:15.12.07 List of witness for opposite party DW1 - Kala.P List of documents for opposite party D1 - Abnormality Register D2 - Letter dtd: 22.01.07 | 
