By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:
The case of complainant is that the complainant is the consumer of respondents vide consumer No.13976. The complainant is running the business for livelihood and the firm is a SSI Unit. The respondents are taking meter reading properly and the complainant is paying the electricity charges regularly. The power meter is keeping in the custody of respondents. On 3.9.04 the APTS inspected the premises and a site mahazar has been prepared. It is stated in the site mahazar that the two phases are not working. It is not true and there is no tampering done by complainant. The respondents issued a bill for Rs.64,933/- dated 10.9.04 and issued another bill for Rs.14,412/- alleging meter suspected faulty and also issued a bill for Rs.1890/- alleging unauthorized load. These bills are illegal and liable to be cancelled. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter averments are that the complainant is not running the firm for livelihood. It is an industrial connection and there are more than 10 workers and is working as large scale industry. So the complainant is not a consumer as envisaged by Consumer Protection Act. The connected load allotted to the business unit of complainant is 20 KW. But when the APTS inspected the premises on 3.9.04 it was found that two phases are not working and the unauthorized consumption of additional load for 21 KW. The complainant has no right to consume more connected load than allotted. So the disputed bills were issued and complainant is liable to pay the bills amount. The complainant submitted an application to APTS Deputy Chief Engineer and by considering the application the complainant was permitted to remit 20% of the total amount. The complainant made to believe that he will remit the amount but did not do so. Hence dismiss.
3. The points for consideration are that:
(1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?
(2) If so, is there any deficiency in service?
(3) Other reliefs and costs.
4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 series and oral testimony of PW1. No evidence adduced by respondents.
5. The first point to be decided is the maintainability of the complaint before the Forum. According to the complainant, he is running polymers unit exclusively for the purpose of livelihood by means of self employment. It is also stated it is a SSI Unit. The respondents rejected this contention of complainant and stated that it is a commercial concern and complainant is conducting the unit with profit motive. In the counter it is stated that it is a large scale industry and there are more than 10 workers are engaged.
6. The complainant is examined as PW1 and he deposed that he and his wife and one another person are the persons working in the firm. There is no suggestion on the part of respondents during cross examination about the number of workers stated in the counter. There is nothing brought from PW1 to prove that it is a commercial concern. From the evidence of PW1 it is proved that he is running the business for the purpose of livelihood by means of self employment. So the complaint is found maintainable.
7. The 2nd point is the alleged deficiency in service on the part of respondents. It is the case of complainant that Ext. P1 series to P1(b) bills are illegal and liable to be set aside. The respondents stated that at the time of APTS inspection it was found that two phases of meter are not working and there was unauthorized consumption of additional load of 21 KW. The respondents made averments in the counter with regard to the calculation of Ext. P1 series bills amount. Even though some documents were produced by respondents no evidence adduced and at the time of evidence it is submitted that they have no evidence. So there is not at all any evidence to show that two phases of the meter were not functioned and consumption of unauthorized additional load. So no detailed discussion is necessary and bills are liable to be cancelled.
8. In the result the complaint is allowed and the Ext. P1 series bills stand cancelled.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 11th day of October 2011.
