By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:<br /> <br /> The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> <br /> The complaint in brief is as follows.<br /> <br /> The Complainant is a proprietor of a concerned named Anand Engineering Works with Consumer No.766 (9830) of the electricity connection supplied by the Opposite Party. Before 1988 the Complainant had been running service station and engineering works in which electric motors of 5 HP and another one of 3 HP were in use. The service station and the engineering work had license given by the Panchayath and the energy consumption charge was remitted from time to time. <br /> <br /> 2. Since 1998 the service station was stopped by the Complainant and electric motor of 3 HP was not in use resultantly the consumption of energy was considerably lessened. The <br /> Complainant gave an application to the 1st Opposite Party that the service station is stopped and<br /> - 2 -<br /> the tariff in which the Complainant was listed was to be revised and a new slab with revised<br /> tariff is to be given that is slab LT3 is to be granted to the Complainant. Even after the application the Complainant was not given the revised tariff and the slab in which the Complainant was continuing had been in force. In 2000 the Complainant renewed the license of the Panchayath, the license availed was only for 5 HP motor engineering works but the bill issued to the Complainant continuity unchanged in the same pattern of the slab. An application was also given by the Complainant on 30.5.2000 to get the slab changed on 8.7.2002 under the title of demand collection and balance statement, a bill of Rs.19,521/- was issued to the Complainant and upon the petition by the Complainant the amount was allowed to be remitted in installments. While the installments were remitting on 2 bills one on 6.9.2002 of Rs.2,041/- and another bill on 7.11.2002 of Rs.1,289/- was issued to the Complainant and subsequently the amount demanded in the bills were remitted. The amount recovered from the Complainant under the pretext of the charge upon the consumption of the energy is illegal and unauthorized. <br /> <br /> 3. The Opposite Party is not empowered to collect from the Complainant excess amount which has no legal validity. The re-fixing of the slab basing on the consumption of energy was not done by the Opposite Party and it is a deficiency in service. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to refund the excess amount unauthorizedly collected in the way of consumption of electric energy with interest and the slab in which the Complainant is included is to be re-fixed basing on the consumption of energy.<br /> <br /> 4. The Opposite Party was served notice and the 2nd Opposite Party was supplemented and the Complainant was amended as per IA No.181/03 dated 09.07.2003. The Opposite Parties were served notice but no version were filed. <br /> <br /> 5. Points for consideration are:<br /> 1.Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?.<br /> 2.Relief and cost.<br /> <br /> 6. Points No.1 and 2: The Complainant swearing facts alleged filed affidavit. Ext.A1 to A6 are marked. The Opposite Party has not tendered any evidence either orally or in documents. The bills issued to the Complainant are in tariff 7A. The copy of the application given to the 1st Opposite Party dated 30.5.2000 is marked as Ext.A1. The application contains the request of the Complainant to change the tariff from the existing one to the tariff in the law consumption of energy. Ext.A6 is the license given to the Complainant wherein the license issued was for running an electric motor 5 HP and in conducting an Engineering <br /> Works Shop. The Ext.A1 is endorsed by an official on 31.5.2000. The demand and disconnection notice issued by the Opposite Party shows that the tariff of the Complainants in the consumption of energy belongs to 7A. The difference in the charge if the consumption is revised for the lesser use of energy is not brought out in evidence. The chargeable amount if the consumption of energy by the Complainant running with a 5 HP motor in the concerned cannot be estimated. More over the secretary to K.S.E.B is authorized to sue and to be sued as a party is not arrayed as the Opposite Party in this case. <br /> <br /> 7. The issuance of the demand notice to the Complainant including in 7A tariff on the consumption of electric energy is unauthorized and illegal. The firm of the Complainant is to be included in the revised tariff upon estimate by Opposite Party on the consumption of energy. The Complainant has not proved in evidence the difference in the excess amount collected if the tariff belongs to a lesser unit. <br /> <br /> In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to fix the tariff on the estimate of the connected load. The Opposite Parties are directed to comply with this order within one month from the date of this order.<br /> <br /> <br /> Pronounced in open Forum on this the 26th day of February 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT: Sd/-<br /> <br /> MEMBER : Sd/-<br /> <br /> /True Copy/<br /> Sd/-<br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.<br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> Witnesses for the Complainant:<br /> <br /> PW1. Anandakuttan. Complainant.<br /> <br /> Witnesses for the Opposite Parties:<br /> <br /> Nil.<br /> <br /> Exhibits for the Complainant:<br /> <br /> A1. Copy of the Letter. dt: 30.05.2000.<br /> A2. Copy of the Receipt.<br /> A3. Receipt. dt: 08.08.2002.<br /> A4. Receipt. dt: 16.10.2002.<br /> A5. Receipt. dt: 11.11.2002.<br /> A6. License. dt: 30.05.2000.<br /> <br /> Exhibits for the Opposite Parties: <br /> <br /> Nil.