KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL No. 626/2009

JUDGMENT DATED: 27-12-2010

PRESENT:

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU              :PRESIDENT

1.      The Secretary,

Vydhyuthi Bhavan,

Pattom, Trivandrum.

                                                                   : APPELLANTS

2.      The Assistant Executive Engineer,

Electrical Major Section, KSEB,

Thevalakkara, Kollam.

(By Adv.Sri.S.Balachandran)

          Vs.

Chandra Sekharan Pillai,

Parayil Padinjattathil,                                 : RESPONDENT

Arinalloor, Thevalakkara,

Kollam.

(By Adv.Sri.Dinesh Sajan)

  JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT

Appellants are the opposite parties/KSEB in CC.455/06 in the file of CDRF, Kollam.  The bill issued by the appellant with respect to the past fixed charges omitted to be collected stands set aside.

2. It is the case of the complainant that he was conducting a clinic by name Athira Clinic with consumer No.18609.  The tariff at the time was LT-I A with fixed charge at Rs.110/-.   On 8/2/2005 the opposite party changed the tariff as LT VI-B without any reason and subsequently on 16/12/06 a bill has been issued with raising the fixed charge to Rs.660/- per each bill and directed to pay a sum of Rs.660/- as short assessment from February 2005 to December 2006  after deducting the fixed charge of Rs.110/- from each bill.  It is the allegation with the above bill is illegal.

3. The contention of the opposite parties/appellants is that there was omission to collect the fixed charges from the date from which the tariff was changed from LT I-A to LT-VI-B.   The complainant has been assessed under LT-VI-B applicable to private hospitals.  The relevant fixed charge is Rs.55/- per KW per month.  Hence the total fixed charges in the instant case would be Rs.55/- x 6 ie, Rs.330/- per month, as 6 KW is the connected load.  The above was omitted to be collected and hence the bill issued.

4. Evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1, Exts.P1 to P6 and D1 and D2.

5.  The Forum has held that the bill has been issued after the expiry of 2 years and hence illegal.  We find that the above finding is incorrect as admittedly the date of the bill is 6/12/2006 and period from which the amount has been claimed is from 8/2/2005.  The same is within the period of 2 years.  Hence the above finding of the Forum cannot be sustained.

6. It was contended by the counsel for the respondent/ complainant that the complainant cannot be put in the category of private hospitals and that the connected load did not amount to 6 KW.  We find that both the contentions cannot be upheld   as the copy of the agreement produced shows the connected load as 5125 watts which has been rounded to 6 KW.  If the complainant cannot be included in the category of private hospitals the other category is LT VI-C for which the fixed charge is Rs.170/- per K.W where as in the instant case he has been assessed at the rate of Rs.55/- per KW.  Hence we find that there is no merit in the contention of the respondent.

In the result the order of the Forum is set aside.  The appeal is allowed.

The office will forward the LCR along with the copy of this order to the Forum.

JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT

VL.