SRI.K.VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT. Complaint for quashing electricity bill realization of compensation and costs. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant is a retired Government Servant and Consumer No.3353 of Kannanalloor Electric Major Section. The complainant after his retirement is running a small shop adjacent to his house for the purpose of earning a livelihood. The complainant is using 180- 200 units of electricity bi-monthly for which Rs.280-350 are being paid. During July 2005 his consumption was 142 units for which Rs. 246/- was paid. In September 2005 he consumed 193 units for which Rs.347/- was paid. On 8.11.2005 he received a bill for Rs. 1671/- for consuming 211 units. On enquiry it was revealed that the complainant has used an electric light for the purpose of getting light to the shop room and therefore the tariff was converted from 1A tariff to 7A tariff and issued the bill. The complainant is entitled to use an additional load not exceeding 20% of the connected load in his house. The bill is issued ignoring that aspect and therefore the bill is liable to be quashed. The conduct of the opp.party is deficiency in service and unfaire trade practice. Hence the complaint.. The opp.parties filed a joint version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant is a consumer of opp.parties registered under LT 1 tariff under Electrical Section, Kannanalloor. The complainant extended the supply from his premises to an adjacent shop . The meter reader recorded the facts in the register on 9.9.2005 . On the basis of that Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section Kannanalloor prepared a site mahazar. As per the order of the Kerala State Electricity Board No.[FM]No.1462/02/TRAC/10-1/2002 dated 24.10.2002 published in Kerala Gazette dated 1.11.2002 a domestic consumer covered by this notification will be allowed to utilize Electrical Energy in some portion of their residence for their own use for purpose other than domestic purpose defined LT 1 when such connected load does not exceed 20% of the total connected load in their premises when the connected load shall be segregated and separate service connection obtained under appropriate tariff when this is not done the tariff applicable to the whole service shall be at the appropriate tariff applicable to the connected load used for purpose other than domestic, if such tariff is higher than the tariff for LT1 here the extended load is above 20% . Hence tariff of the complainant’s service connection changed to LT VII A with effect from 1.10.2005 which is the tariff for commercial purpose. Accordingly spot bill was issued on 8.11.2005 under LT VII A tariff for Rs.1671/- . The averment in para 5 of the complaint is denied. The consumer exceeded 20% of the total connected load and as per the prevailing rule the bill was issued There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as alleged in the complaint. Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint with their costs. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties 2. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant Pw.1 IS EXAMINED. Ext.P1 and P2 are marked. Fore the opp.party DW.1 and 2 are examined. Ext. D1 is examined. Points 1 and 2 The complainant is a consumer of opp.party under I.T.I tariff is not disputed. The case of the complainant is that he is running a small provision store which an annexure of his building and that his bimonthly consumption charges is only between Rs.280-350 but the opp.parties issued Ext.P1 bill alleging that he is using an extended load to his shop and charged the I A tariff to 7A tariff which is illegal and amount to deficiency in service. According to the opp.parties in 9/05 the meter reader noticed that there is an unauthorized extended load from the lhouse of the complainant to his shop room and on the basis of that report DW.1 visited the premises and prepared Ext. D1 mahazar. As per Ext. D1 the connected load of complainant’s house is 1120 walts and the extended load was 360 walts which is more than20% of the connected load and therefore I A tariff was changed to VII A tariff and issued Ext.P1. In Ext.D1 DW.2 who prepared the same has stated that the extended load was taken using plastic wire. Though he would state that there were 3 lights in the shop room their positions are not shown. Similarly the capacity of the Fridge alleged to have been there and the type of fan viz. ceiling fan, or table fan etc. are not forth coming from Ext. D1. The position of the fridge and fan are also not shown. If so much electric appliances are to be used in that room there must be a wiring in that room, but nothing is mentioned regarding any wiring. If DW.1 has actually visited the shop there is no reason as to why he failed to report the above aspects which are very material. The presence of any independent witness is also shown in Ext.D1 despite the fact that the premises is a shop room. There is also no independent attestor to Ext. D1. The veracity of Ext. D1 is seriously assailed by the complainant whose definite case is that DW.1 has not visited his premises for preparing Ext. D1 and there is force in that contention DW.2 has no case that no independent witness was available there at that time or the available person refused to attest D1. In these circumstances the credibility of Ext. D1 has to be doubted. Ext. P2 is a report submitted b y the Asst. Exe. Engineer, Kottiyam to the Executive Engineer Chathannoor in pursuant to a complaint filed by the complainant herein before the Chief Minister of Kerala. In Ext.P2 it is clearly stated that the extended load is only 40W and the connected load of the residence which is in the same concrete building is one KW only and that the condition was as per rules. If Ext.P2 is relied in Ext.D1 cannot be believed for a moment. One is at a loss to understand as to how DW.2 noticed a connected load of 1120 watts in the residence of the complainant when the Asst. Ext. Engineer, a superior officer and a more competent person has noticed only one KW. Ext.P2 further shows that there was only one light in front of the house which gives light to the shop also. Ext.P2 does not show any light, Fan or Fridge in the shop room or any marks of wiring in the shop room. DW.1 who has also visited the premises has also did not see any such marks. It is also worth pointing out that the opp.parties have no pleading that the complaints removed the wiring existed there. Ext. C1 is the report filed by the commissioner deputed from the Forum. The report filed by the Commissioner is also in accordance with Ext.P2. The Commissioner further stated that she did not notice any wiring or marks of wiring in the shop rooms. No objection is filed to Ext. C1. It is also worth point out that the meter reader has reported on 7.9.2005 about the unauthorized use of extended load. But that report was not produced DW.2 is alleged to have visited the premises on 30.9.05. No satisfactory explanation is forthcoming for such delay to visit the premi9ses when unauthorized extraction of energy was noticed. From the non production of the report filed by the meter reader, the absence of independent attestor to Ext. D1, Ext.P2, C1 and the oral evidence adduced by both sides it is quite probable that the contention of PW.1 that Ext. prepared without visiting his premises is true. It is also pertinent to point out that in Ext.P2 the Asst. Executive Engineer has reported that the condition there is as per rules. Even assuming that the complainant has taken extended load to his shop Ext.P2 would show that it isz within the permissible limit and as such there is no reason to effect change of tariff to 7A from 1 A tariff. We are of the considered view that Ext. D1 was prepared without any bonafiedes with a view to harass the consumer. The conduct of DW.2 amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice causing mental agony to the complainant. Points found accordingly. In the result the complaint is allowed, quashing Ext.P1 bill. The change of tariff from LT.1 to VII A is also quashed. The opp.parties are directed to restore the LT 1 tariff forthwith and to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.2500/- as costs. The 2nd opp.party may realize the compensation and costs from the concerned Asst. Engineer and the meter reader if he choose to do so. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of this order. Dated this the 26th day of June, 2009. . I N D E X List of witness for the complainant PW.1. G. Krishna Pillai List of documents for the complainant P1. – Demand and Disconnection notice for Rs.1671/- P2, - Report submitted by Asst. Exe. Engineer to the Exe. Engineer. C1. – Commission report. List of witnesses for the opp.party DW.1 Muraleedharan DW.2. Sathya Seelan List of documents for the opp.party D1. – Mahazar. | 
