THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM<br /> Present:<br /> Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President<br /> Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member<br /> CC No. 128/2006<br /> Wednesday, the 30th day of July, 2008.<br /> Petitioner : Toji Thomas,<br /> Thottasseril House,<br /> Pampadi P.O, Kottayam.<br /> (By Adv. Tissy Rose K. Cheriyan)<br /> <br /> Opposite parties : 1) The Asst. Exe. Engineer,<br /> KSEB, Pampadi Divisional<br /> <br /> 2) The Secretary,<br /> KSEB, Vaidyuthi Bhavan,<br /> Pattom, Trivandrum.<br /> <br /> O R D E R <br /> Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.<br /> Case of the petitioner is as follows:<br /> The petitioner for construction of his house had taken electric connection from the opposite party in 7 A Tariff. According to the petitioner after completion of the entire construction he had applied to the opposite party for the change of Tariff. The petitioner states that on 26..4..2006 the opposite party accepted an amount of Rs. 50/- from the petitioner as application fee and on 12..5..2006 the opposite party accepted an amount of Rs. 25/- as testing fee and on 12..5..2006 itself the opposite party accepted an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as additional connection deposit. According to the petitioner the opposite party instead of changing the tariff issued a bill calculated in 7 A Tariff amounting Rs. 2,250/- to the petitioner on 5..6..2006. The petitioner had remitted the same later on 4..8..2006 another bill calculated on 7 A Tariff was issued to the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 3,651/-. The petitioner states that on 26..4..2006 another Rs. 35/- was accepted<br /> <br /> -2-<br /> from the petitioner for change of Tariff. The petitioners states that the act of the opposite party in not changing the tariff of the petitioner even after acceptance of the required fee is a clear deficiency in service. So, he prays for a direction for change of Tariff from 12..5..2006, and for refund of the excess amount collected and for cancellation of bill dated 4..8..2006 for an amount of Rs. 3,651/- along with Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.<br /> The opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. According to the opposite party the <br /> petitioner was billed in VII A Tariff. The opposite party admitted that the petitioner had furnished the completion report on 26..4..2006. The opposite party contented that on the said date wiring was completed but the construction was not completed. The opposite party contented that Rs. 50/- was collected for registering the application but the petitioner had not applied for change of tariff on 26..4..2006. Additional cash deposit was collected on 12..5..2006. The opposite party contented that as per clause 32 of Terms and condition of supply 2005 change from higher to lower Tariff is permitted by an officer not below the rank of Asst. Exe. Engineer that too upon written request from the consumer. According to the opposite party bills were issued on VII A Tariff because the consumer had not applied for change of Tariff. They contented that the petitioner had applied only on 10..8..2006 for change of his connection and the Tariff of the petitioner is changed on the date of application. So, the opposite party contented that there is no deficiency on their part and they pray for a dismissal of the petition with their cost.<br /> <br /> <br /> -3-<br /> Points for determinations are:<br /> i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> ii) Reliefs and cost.<br /> Evidence in this case consists of the affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A6 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 to B3 documents on the side of the opposite party.<br /> Point No. 1<br /> The material question to be decided in this case whether the change of tariff from 7A was effected on 26..4..2006 or on 10..8..2006. The petitioner states that on 12..5..2006 the petitioner submitted the application along with the prescribed fee or <br /> change of tariff and ACD deposit of Rs. 1000/-. So, according to him the date on which the amount remitted by him ie., on 12..5..2006 the opposiste party had to change the tariff of the petitioner from commercial to domestic. The opposite party stated that for a change of tariff as per regulation 32 of the conditions of supply 2005. The change of tariff under LT from higher to lower tariff at the request of the consumer shall be permitted by the officer not below the rank of Assistant Executive Engineer. The application for change of tariff was given to the petitioner only on 10..8..2008. The early remittance done by the petitioner on 12..5..2006 is as per the stipulation in clause 14 (2) of the supply 2005. According to the opposite party the petitioner furnished the wiring completion report on 26..4..2006 and also other deposit stipulated under clause 14 (2) of the Supply Code 2005 were remitted on 12..5..2006. But the fee for change of tariff was remitted only on 10..8..2006 along with the application for change of tariff. In order to<br /> <br /> -4-<br /> prove the contention of the opposite party. Opposite party produced the tariff changing register. Said document was marked as Ext. B3. From Ext. B3 it can be seen that the petitioner had remitted the prescribed fee for change of tariff only on 10..8..2006 and thus the tariff of the petitioner was changed from a commercial one to a domestic one So, no deficiency in service can be attributed against the opposite party. So point No. 1 is found accordingly.<br /> Point No. 2<br /> In view of finding in point No. 1. Petition is to be dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no cost and compensation is ordered.<br /> Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of July, 2008