By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> <br /> 1. Complainant who is a tenant in the shop rooms No.11 & 12 owned by Malappuram Municipality is the beneficiary of the electricity supply to these shop rooms and thus a consumer under opposite party. Complainant is conducting a textile shop in these rooms for earning his livelihood by self employment. The electricity connection stands in the name of Malappuram Municipality and the consumer number is 3646. The total connected load in the shop is only 640 watt., and complainant who has been conducting the shop for over 25 years was charged under L.T.VII B tariff upto 26-10-02. While so, after 26-10-02 due to oversight committed by the meter reader the electricity bill dated, 30-12-2002 happened to be issued under L.T.VII A tariff. That this change of tariff was done by overwriting in the bill. The electricity charges under L.T.VII A tariff is higher than VII B. when the error came to his notice, he lodged petitions before the Municipal Commissioner who is the land lord of the building as well as before opposite party and requested to correct the mistake and revise his tariff. Opposite party put forward a lengthy and burden some procedure before the complainant in order to have his tariff revised to VII B. That he has been paying electricity charges under L.T.VII A till date and his request to revise tariff has not been acceded by opposite party. Hence this complaint praying for a direction to opposite party to change his tariff to L.T.VII B., to refund the excess charges paid till date with interest @ 24% and pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- along with costs.<br /> 2. Opposite party has filed version admitting the consumer connection to the shop rooms owned by Malappuram Municipality. It is submitted that the connected load of these rooms is 660W and therefore was charged originally under L.T. VII B tariff. That on 30-12-02 when the meter reading was taken, the connected load was found to have exceeded and hence complainant's tariff was changed to L.T. VII A. It is admitted that complainant is paying current charges under L.T. VII A till date from 30-12-02. That on 14-6-2004 an application was received from the Municipal Secretary requesting to change the tariff. That opposite party had given instructions to apply in the prescribed form remitting Rs.25/- and also to submit Test report, Completion report, application along with agreement schedule. Opposite party can revise the tariff only after submitting these documents and conducting an inspection of the premises. That these formalities have been informed to the complainant. But complainant has not preferred any application in the prescribed form so far and therefore opposite party is unable to consider his request for change of tariff. That meter reader has not done any act irresponsibly and the allegation is denied as false. It is submitted that opposite party is willing to change the tariff if complainant submits necessary application and documents. On receiving such application and conduct of inspection, if the connected load is found to be below I KW., opposite party is willing to change the tariff to VII B.<br /> 3. Evidence consists of the affidavit filed by complainant and Exts.A1 to A5 marked on his side. Opposite party has filed counter affidavit. No documents marked on behalf of opposite party. Either side has not adduced any oral evidence.<br /> 4. Points for consideration:-<br /> (i) Whether opposite party is deficient in service.<br /> (ii) If so, reliefs and costs.<br /> 5. Point (i):-<br /> The admitted facts of this case are (i) that complainant was originally charged under L.T. VII B tariff. (ii) that his tariff was changed to L.T. VII A (iii) that even now complainant is paying electricity charges under L.T. VII A tariff. According to complainant the electricity bills issued upto 26-10-02 were under L.T. VII B. It is his say that due to oversight of the meter reader the bill dated, 30-12-02 happened to be issued under L.T. VII A. Thereafter all subsequent bills till date were issued under L.T.VII A tariff. According to complainant, there has been no cause for change of tariff. It is also his case that the changed tariff was entered in the bill by overwriting. Ext.A2(a) is this bill dated, 30-12-02. On perusal it is apparent on the face of Ext.A2(a) that L.T. VII A has been entered by overwriting on VII B. <br /> 6. The complaint is resisted by opposite party contending that the tariff was changed as per rules and regulations and not due to any act of oversight on the part of meter reader. Opposite party vehemently affirms that there has been no mistake on the part of meter reader. It was submitted on behalf of opposite party that the tariff was changed because complainant exceeded his original connected load of 660 watts. If the connected load is 1 KW or higher the tariff applicable for commercial establishments like shops is L.T. VII A. If the connected load is below 1 KW the tariff applicable is for such shops is VII B. The electricity charges for L.T. VII A tariff is therefore higher than L.T. VII B tariff which is based upon the connected load. Opposite party contends that complainant herein exceeded his connected load and hence the tariff was changed to VII A. This contention is refuted by complainant. It was submitted on behalf of complainant that he has never exceeded his original connected load. That opposite party has not conducted any site inspection prior to the change of tariff. That even a notice regarding the change of tariff was not given to the complainant. That tariff was changed by simply noting a new tariff in Ext.A2(a) bill which is arbitrary. Complainant also relied upon Ext.A5 which is the site mahazar prepared on 24-7-08 by Sub Engineer of the Electricity Board. As per Ext.A5 the present total connected load of the complainant is only 620 watts. Complainant has stated in the complaint as well as affidavit and Ext.A3 that his connected load is very less and that he can be charged only under L.T. VII B tariff. Ext.A5 which proves that the connected load is only 620 watts. substantiates the consistent case of the complainant. Further though opposite party contends that complainant exceeded his connected load has not stated in the version or affidavit as to what is the excess load found by opposite party. These details in the counter affidavit filed by opposite party are left blank. In fact the counter affidavit contains a lot of unfilled blanks. Opposite party has no case that inspection of the premises was conducted prior to changing of Tariff. Absolutely no evidence is tendered by opposite party to prove that complainant has exceeded his connected load. In the absence of anything to the contrary it can be presumed that tariff, in the instant case happened to be changed due to the act of the meter reader who has issued Ext.A2(a) bill on 30-12-02. It is established and proved that complainant belongs to the category of L.T. VII B tariff. We therefore conclude that opposite party has changed the tariff without any basis and without complying proper procedures. Changing the tariff arbitrarily to the detriment of the complainant definitely is deficiency in service.<br /> 7. Another aspect that needs consideration is the attitude shown by opposite party towards the consumer after bringing to the notice of opposite party his grievance regarding change in tariff. It is the say of complainant that as soon as the error came to his notice he filed petitions before opposite party as well as Commissioner of Malappuram Municipality requesting to revise his tariff. Ext.A3 is the petition filed by registered post to opposite party which is dated, 22-12-2003. In Ext.A3 complainant has sufficiently explained the facts and his grievance and has also submitted copies of the electricity bills along with his application. Ext.A4 is the letter issued by Secretary of Malappuram Municipality to opposite party requesting to take steps to change the tariff of the electricity connection to complainant's shop room. Complainant has submitted his request for tariff change to the Municipality also because the rooms are owned by Municipality and the electricity connection also stands in the name of Municipality. Complainant is only a tenant in the shop room and a beneficiary for electricity supply. On receiving Ext.A4 the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Malappuram has endorsed on 05-7-04 that the application for tariff change must be resubmitted in booklet worth Rs.25/-. Even in the version and all through this litigation the stand taken by opposite party is that complainant has to comply with the procedural formalities for change of tariff in order to have his tariff revised to VII B. The procedure for change of tariff is contained in clause 30 of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy of Kerala State Electricity Board. It is reproduced as under:<br /> 30. Change of Tariff.<br /> The change of tariff under L.T. from higher to a lower tariff at the request of the consumer shall be permitted in bonafide cases by the officer not below the rank of Executive Engineer. The Executive engineer shall satisfy himself the bonafides of the requests and record the reasons while permitting change of tariff. A supplemental schedule to the original service connection agreement showing the change in classification/tariff and the date of change over to the new classification/tariff, has also to be got executed by the consumer.<br /> 8. It was urged on behalf of complainant that after illegally changing the tariff opposite party putforward burdensome, time consuming and expensive procedures in order to have his tariff revised. The intractible stand taken by opposite party is that tariff can be changed only if complainant applies in prescribed form remitting Rs.25/- and also submitting test report, completion report and agreement schedule. It can be reasonably understood that since the service connection/agreement stands in the name of Municipality these procedures put forward by opposite party is definitely a laborious task to the complainant. We are of the view that opposite party could not have asked the complainant to go through such procedural formalities for change of tariff when the tariff itself was changed by opposite party without any basis, arbitrarily and unilaterally. If the Assistant Engineer who endorsed upon Ext.A4 had taken some time and care to attend to the facts behind the grievance of the consumer and to conduct an inspection of the premises the dispute could have been solved at the earliest. Even after receiving Ext.A3 petition where complainant has submitted in details how the tariff happened to be changed and that his total connected load is very less opposite party has failed to enquire whether such error has been committed by the meter reader. Opposite party has remained in it's bureaucratic slumber and left the complainant to his own mercy to get the error rectified which was actually committed by opposite party.. It has to stated here that, opposite party has to maintain a register regarding the basic details of a consumer connection. These basic details include the date of installation, purpose of supply, total connected load, tariff fixed, details of meter etc. The meter reader/spot biller has to prepare the invoice/electricity bills basing upon these details. The meter reader is not empowered to make changes in these basic details of the consumer connection. If the Assistant Engineer who received Ext.A3 or the Engineer who endorsed upon Ext.A4 had perused the register containing the basic details of the consumer connection and had conducted a site inspection the grievance of the complainant would have been solved easily, and early. Opposite party has failed to apply due mind. In our opinion, inaction on the part of opposite party is not only negligence but amounts to serious dereliction of duty. The service rendered to the consumer in the instant case has not been prompt, adequate or qualitative. From the above discussions we have no hesitation to conclude that opposite party is deficient in service.<br /> 9. Point (ii):-<br /> The prayer of the complainant to change the tariff from VII A to VII B is only to be allowed. Complainant has to be compensated for his deficiency. In fact the deficiency in this case starts from 2002 onwards when opposite party changed the tariff arbitrarily and thereafter collected excess charges from the consumer. From 30-12-2002 onwards complainant has been paying electricity changes under VII A tariff. He prays for refund of Rs.7,296/- paid by him in excess till date. Complainant is definitely entitled to refund of this amount. In our view, for dealing such a situation, the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta 1993 CTJ 929 (SC) CP is most relevant, which illustrates how a common man is left helpless by the inaction on the part of public authorities. It is held,<br /> “It is unfortunate that matters which require immediate attention linger on and the man in the street is made to run from one end to other with no result. The culture of window clearance appears to be totally dead. Even in ordinary matters a common man who has neither the political backing nor the financial strength to match the inaction in public oriented departments gets frustrated and it erodes the credibility in the system”.<br /> The Appex Court finally held that in such cases the Consumer for a shall pass appropriate orders that competent authority/department shall pay the amount and recover the same from the concerned officer. The principles of this decision are squarely applicable to this case. Complainant has suffered financial loss mental agony and hardships due to the callous and insensitive attitude of opposite party who is a monopoly service provider. We hold that opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- as compensation to the complainant towards deficiency and hardships. The amount so paid by Kerala State Electricity Board shall be recovered from the Assistant Engineer concerned and shall be divided proportionately if there are more than one officers who was in charge of the section during the relevant period when complainant submitted Ext.A3 and A4 documents.<br /> 10.In the result we allow the complaint and order the following:-<br /> (i) Opposite party shall change the Tariff of the electricity connection No.3646 from L.T.VII A to L.T.VII B.<br /> (ii) Opposite party shall refund an amount of Rs.7,926/- (Rupees Seven thousand nine hundred and twenty six only) to the complainant which shall be adjusted to the future electricity bills of the complainant.<br /> (iii) Opposite party shall also pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) as compensation to the complainant. It will be open to Kerala State Electricity Board to recover the same from the officers who have derelicted their duty so that in future such delay in discharge of their duties may not occur.<br /> (iv) The time limit for compliance is fixed as one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> (v) We make no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> Dated this 8th day of September, 2008.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil <br /> Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A5<br /> Ext.A1(series) : Demand and Disconnection notice and receipt for Rs.226/-<br /> dated, 26-10-2002 issued by opposite party to consumer No.3646<br /> Ext.A2(series) : Demand and Disconnection notice and receipt issued by <br /> opposite party to consumer No.3646.<br /> Ext.A3 : Carbon copy of the request dated, 22-12-2003 submitted by <br /> complainant to opposite party.<br /> Ext.A4 : Letter dated, 14-6-04 by Secretary, Malappuram Municipality to<br /> Assistant Executive Engineer, KSEB., Malappuram.<br /> Ext.A5 : Photo copy of the Site mahazar dated, 24-7-2008 prepared by <br /> Sri.P.Abdussalam, Sub Engineer, Malappuram Section.<br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br />