By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
 

The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant is a consumer of electricity connection No.5348. The supply of electricity to the Complainant used for the purpose is assigned in tariff. The Opposite party made a surprise visit to the premises of the Complainant and made a report that the electricity is unauthorizedly used for purposes other than specified in tariff. The workers present at the time of inspection were compelled to sign as directed by the Opposite Party. The Complainant was given an additional bill dated 11.11.2008 demanding the payment of Rs.10,253/- before 26.11.2008. The reason stated in the additional bill is for misuse of tariff, the Complainant is also demanded to pay Rs.9,306/-. The additional bill issued to the Complainant is not based on any reason and more over it is a deficiency in service on their part. There may be an order with a direction that the Complainant is not entitled to remit Rs.9,306/-. Towards the hardships and cost Rs.2,000/- is to be given to the Complainant by the Opposite Party along with compensation of Rs.5,000/-.

2. The Opposite Party filed version, in short it is as follows. The Complainant himself is a stranger to the Opposite Party in the purview of the Consumer Protection Act the Complainant herein has no locus standi to file this complaint. The allegation of the Complainant that the Opposite Party threatened to sign blank papers and sudden inspection was done on 11/2008 are in correct. The consumer No.5348is registered in the name of Varghese, Kalathingal house, Rippon. The supply was given under the domestic tariff but on inspection it was found that the energy was misused for other purposes extending connection from the premises. The additional load found to the extent of 2 KW and based on that in additional bill was given to the consumer. The said charges given for the period under the commercial tariff is in between 12/07 to 10/08 for Rs.3,000/- and electricity charges for the said period under the commercial tariff is Rs.6,792/-. The petition filed by the Complainant is only to delay the payment of legally liable charge more over one agent of the Complainant named one Saju threatened the Opposite Party to withdrew the bill issued. The complaint is not based on reasons and it is to be dismissed with cost.

3. The points in consideration are:

1. Whether the Complainant is having any locus standi to file this complaint?

2. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

3. Relief and cost.

4. Point No.1:- The complaint is filed by one Doctor Sreekumar who is not a consumer as per the documents filed how ever the Complainant is found to be a beneficiary of the supply provided. The Opposite Party has not detached the supply of electricity being the ownership is not transferred. The complaint is to be considered basing on the principle of natural justice and the point No.1 is considered accordingly.

5. Points No.2 and 3:- The points No.2 and 3 can be considered together. The agent of the Complainant filed proof affidavit, Ext.A1 to A8 are marked for the Complainant. Ext.C1 is the Commission report on inspection. The Opposite party inter alia contended the allegation of the Complainant and filed proof affidavit, Ext.B1 to B3 are the documents marked for the Opposite Party. The agent of the Complainant is examined as PW1. The worker in the premises of the Complainant is examined as PW2.

6. The case of the Complainant is that the consumption of electricity provided to the Complainant premises is in LT 1A tariff. The Opposite Party made a surprise visit to the premises of the Complainant and found out the misuse of electricity and an additional bill was issued for the misuse of tariff of Rs.9,306/- deducting Rs.947/- from the total amount payable Rs.10,253/- by the Complainant. The issuance of additional bill for misuse of tariff under the pretext of electricity use to the purposes other than domestic is against reasons and the deficiency on their part. Ext. A1 is the additional bill issued to the consumer No.5348 dated 11.11.2008 for misuse of tariff. The Complainant became a consumer under LT 7A tariff in consumer 18156. Ext.B3 series shows bimonthly bills issued to the Complainant the bill dated 17.4.2009 and 15.6.2009. The Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Meppadi who made the surprise inspection to the premises and Ext.B1 the mahazar was paid by this witness. On verification of the documents it is seen that Ext.B1 is prepared upon the inspection in the premises. On examination of the witnesses it is admitted that a construction work of the resort are in currency in the premises. Ext.A6 is the bill dated 19.6.2009 of Rs.160/- the meter is faulty from the face of this exhibit. Likewise the bill dated 21.10.2008 in Ext.B2 the meter found to be faulty. The liability is wested with the Opposite Party to replace the faulty meter with a faultless one. The bill dated 16.12.2008 of the bills produced subsequently shows the reading of the meter which was in working condition. It is not brought out beyond doubt that the consumer had been in use of energy for the only purpose assigned by tariff. The Opposite Party demanded from the consumer as per the Ext.A1 fixed charge and energy charge for the period of 6 months for the misuse of tariff. The consumer was issued an additional bill while the consumption was in domestic tariff. The Assessing Officer's conclusion for a period of 6 months as the unauthorized use of electricity is apart from the provisions which is not legally entitled also. This act of the Opposite Party is a deficiency in service. While the consumption was in domestic tariff the unauthorized use of energy if any incurred, the period which is to be confined is for three months only. The Ext.A1 the bill issued to the Consumer is not legally sustainable and hence it is quashed. The Opposite Party has to give the consumer fresh additional bill treating the unauthorized use of electricity was continuing for a period of 3 months immediately preceding the date of inspection and the assessment as such shall be made at rate equal 1 ½ time the tariff applicable in this case.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The additional bill issued to the consumer No.5348 dated 11.11.2008 is quashed. The Opposite party is directed to issue the consumer fresh bill for the relevant period counting the unauthorized use of electricity for the period of 3 months immediately preceding the date of inspection and the assessment shall be made at the rate equal to 1 ½ time the tariff applicable in the relevant category. The complainant is also entitled for getting deducted the payment made towards this bill. This order is to be complied within one month from the date of receiving this. No order as to cost or compensation.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 27^th August 2009.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER- I: Sd/-

MEMBER-II: Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

PW1. Saju P.K. Manager, Dr. Sreekumar's Estate.

PW2. Ummukulsu Cook, Dr. Sreekumar's Estate.

Witnesses for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. Arun P.S. Asst. Engineer, Electrical Section, Meppadi.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Bill. dt:11.11.2008.

A2. Copy of Receipt. dt:17.10.2008.

A3. Bill. dt:19.12.2007.

A4. Bill. dt:22.2.2008.

A5. Bill. dt:15.04.2008.

A6. Bill. dt:19.6.2008.
 

A7. Authorisation Letter. dt:17.11.2008.

A8. Bill. dt:6.11.2008

C1. Commission Report. dt:18.12.2008.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

B1. Copy of Site Mahazar dt:23.10.2008.

B2 Series (6 Numbers). Bills.

B3 Series (2 Numbers) Bills.