ORDER<br /> Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):<br /> <br /> The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from this Forum.<br /> 2. The brief facts of this complaint is as follows: Building No.102/XXIII (presently 402/XXII) belongs to one T.G. Simon. There is electric connection and the consumer number is 1170. The complainant is the Power of Attorney Holder of T.G. Simon and the tenant of the above said house. The opposite parties issued electricity bills to the complainant under domestic category upto January, 2001. But on 25.01.2001, the opposite parties issued electricity bill for an amount of Rs.5,232/- for 757 units. The said bill was issued under commercial tariff. Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint before this Forum as O.P. No.81/01 challenging the said bill and this Forum passed an order in favour of the complainant directing the opposite parties to repay Rs.4,544/- to the complainant with 12% interest along with a cost of Rs.1,000/- and compensation of Rs.1,500/-. However, during the pendency of the above said O.P., the opposite parties issued a bill on 29.03.2001 for Rs.5,756/- for the consumption of 857 units, on 29.05.2001 a bill for Rs.5,756 units for the consumption of 857 units, on 26.07.2001 a bill for Rs.4,080/- for consuming 603 units and on 28.09.2001 a bill for Rs.7,039/- for consuming 873 units. The above said bills were paid by the complainant. The said bills were issued under commercial tariff. The above said house was used by the complainant and his employees for their residence. Since the house was using for their residence, the opposite parties have no right to charge the complainant’s connection to commercial tariff. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to realise an amount of Rs.17,782/-, the excess amount collected by the opposite parties under commercial tariff with 12% interest along with cost and compensation. Hence, this complaint is filed for the deficiency of service of the opposite parties and he prays for allowing him to realise the aforesaid amounts from the opposite parties.<br /> 3. The first opposite party filed common version for the opposite parties with the following main contentions: The above complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The opposite parties admitted the issuance of the bills under commercial tariff (LT VIIA) as the complainant was using electrical energy for commercial purpose. On an enquiry conducted by the opposite parties, they revealed that a group of employees of the complainant’s textile shop at Pathanamthitta were the real occupants of the building and they were using the said building for their lodging. The consumption of 757 units itself shows that the electrical energy was used for the purpose other than domestic purpose. The opposite parties are entitled to change the tariff in case they found that the energy is not using in accordance with the terms and conditions agreed at the time of giving the connection. With regard to O.P.81/01, the opposite parties’ contention is that the said case was filed for a bill issued earlier. The 4 bills in question were issued by the opposite parties even before the order in O.P.81/01, and issuance of such bills were not restrained by the Hon’ble Forum. During the issuance of the said bills, the building was using as a lodge. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service from their part and this complaint is not maintainable and hence they prayed for the dismissal of this complaint with their cost.<br /> 4. On the above pleadings, the following points are raised for consideration: <br /> <br /> (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?<br /> <br /> <br /> (2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any reliefs as prayed for in the complaint?<br /> (3) Reliefs and Costs?<br /> <br /> 5. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of the complainant who has been examined as PW1 and the documents produced by him were marked as Exts.A1 to A6 on the basis of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant. For the opposite parties, the first opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked on the basis of the proof affidavit filed by the opposite parties.<br /> 6. Point No.1: The complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and the dispute between the parties is a consumer dispute and hence the complaint is maintainable before this Forum.<br /> 7. Points 2 and 3: The complainant’s case is that he is using the building for his residential purpose and the opposite parties are not entitled to issue electricity bills for the said building under commercial tariff. In order to prove his case he had filed proof affidavit and produced certain documents, which are marked as Exts.A1 to A6. Ext.A1 is the Special Power of Attorney in favour of the complainant executed by the owner of the building in which the complainant is residing. Ext.A2 is the photocopy of the rent deed executed in between the owner of the building and the complainant. Ext.A3 is the photocopy of the order-dated 29.11.2002 in O.P.81/01 on the file of the CDRF, Pathanamthitta. Exts. A4, A4(a), A4(b) and A4(c) are the photocopies of electricity bills in dispute issued by the opposite parties and Ext.A5, A5(a) and A5(b) are the receipts issued by the opposite parties in respect of Ext.A4 series bills. Ext.A6 is the photocopy of the certificate-dated 4.10.2001 issued by the Secretary, Municipality, Pathanamthitta. <br /> <br /> 8. In cross examination, PW1 deposed before the Forum that he is the proprietor of Sreemathi Textiles, Pathanamthitta and he is residing in the building owned by T.G. Simon for rental basis and he is ailing from Tamil Nadu. He also denies that his employees are not residing in the said building. He also admitted that the opposite parties are entitled to change the tariff in case the purpose of consumption is changed to commercial purpose. He admitted <br /> in cross-examination that the order in O.P.81/02 is not an order changing the tariff applicable to the building in this case.<br /> <br /> 9. On the other hand, the opposite party’s contention is that the building used by the complainant could not be included in domestic tariff because the said building is presently using by the employees of the complainant as their residence. In order to prove their contention, DW1 produced 2 documents, which are marked as Exts.B1 and B2. Ext.B1 is the photocopy of the meter reading register (page No.151) of consumer No.1170 and Ext.B2 is the photocopy of the Gazette Notification dated 7.8.2001 regarding the directions for fixing tariff. DW1 deposed in cross-examination that, the opposite parties are entitled to revise the tariff as per Ext.B2. He also deposed that as per the order in O..P.81/01, they have changed the tariff to domestic category for the period of the disputed bill of O.P.81/01. Later, they found that the building was using for commercial purpose, they have again changed the tariff to commercial category and they are entitled to do so as per Ext.B2. <br /> <br /> 10. The main dispute in this case is whether the building of the complainant is using for a domestic purpose or for a commercial purpose. The complainant claims that the said building is using for domestic purpose where as the opposite party’s contention is that this building is using for commercial purpose. On going through Ext.A2 it is clear that the building was taken by PW1 for rent for accommodating the employees of PW1. Ext.A6 also shows that the said building was using by PW1 and his employees. From this, it is very clear that the building in question is not using for a domestic purpose. In this context, it is pertinent to note the following portion of the deposition of PW1 “Rm³ IpSpw_ambn«mWv Cu _nÂUnwKvkn Xmakn¨ncpXv ”. This shows that PW1 and his family members have resided in the building earlier. But now the building is occupied by the employees of PW1 and hence the purpose of the consumption is for commercial purpose. In a similar matter, the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in its judgment dated 31.08.2005 in WA No.1811/05 held that “the building used for accommodating the staff of the jewellery is inter linked with the commercial use of the petitioner. That being the position, we find no illegality in the steps taken by the Board in classifying the premises as LT VII(A) tariff.”. In the circumstances, we find that Exts.A4 series electricity bills issued by the opposite parties are not illegal as the said building is using for commercial purpose. Therefore, this O.P. is not allowable. <br /> <br /> 11. In the result, this O.P. is dismissed. No cost.<br /> <br /> Declared in the Open Forum on this is the 8th day of September, 2008.<br /> (Sd/-)<br /> Jacob Stephen,<br /> (President)<br /> Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-)<br /> Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)<br /> Appendix:<br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant:<br /> PW1 : P.V.G. Kannan.<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:<br /> A1 : Special Power of Attorney Executed by T.G. Simon in favour of P.V.G. Kannan.<br /> A2 : Photocopy of the rent deed dated 13.01.1998 executed by P.V.G. Kannan in <br /> favour of Simon Alex.<br /> A3 : Photocopy of the order dated 29.11.2002 in O.P. No.81/01 on the file of the <br /> CDRF, Pathanamthitta.<br /> A4 : Photocopy of the electricity bill dated 29.3.2001 for Rs. 5,756/- issued by the <br /> opposite parties to the complainant.<br /> A4(a) : Photocopy of the electricity bill dated 29.5.2001 for Rs. 5,756/- issued by the <br /> opposite parties to the complainant.<br /> A4(b) : Photocopy of the electricity bill dated 26.7.2001 for Rs. 4,080/- issued by the <br /> opposite parties to the complainant.<br /> A4(c) : Photocopy of the electricity bill dated 28.9.2001 for Rs. 7,039/- issued by the <br /> opposite parties to the complainant.<br /> A5,A5(a) & A5(b) : Photocopy of the receipts issued by the opposite parties to the complainant.<br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:<br /> DW1 : Biju. M.K.<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:<br /> B1 : Photocopy of the meter reading register (Page No.151).of consumer No.1170<br /> B2 : Photocopy of the Gazette Notification dated 7.8.2001.<br /> (By Order)<br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent.<br />