KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUDTHIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.187/06

JUDGMENT DATED  15.10.2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU            --  PRESIDENT

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA                                     --  MEMBER

1.      The Asst.Engineer,

Electrical Section,

KSEB, Nadathara,

Thrissur.                                                    --  APPELLANTS

2.      Krala State Electricity Board

            rep. by Its Secretary,

          Thiruvananthapuram. 

              (By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair)

                      Vs.

E.V.Vinayan,

Edathara House,                                                       --  RESPONDENT

Kuttanellur, Thrissur.

                                          JUDGMENT

 SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA          --  MEMBER

          This appeal prefers from the orders passed by the CDRF, Thrissur in OP.No.569/04  order dated 29^th December 2005.   The appellants are the opposite parties and the complainant is the respondent.

          2. In brief, the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties  (C.No.2255).  It is a domestic connection.  The APTS inspected the premises and issued a bill for Rs.15,594/- on 17.4.04.  In the bill there is no date was mentioned.  The respondent was issued this bill on the ground that the complainant who used the energy for industrial purpose and the tariff is changed to LT IV.  The complainant was using the LT 1 A according to law.  Disconnection is threatened in case of non payment of the amount.  The complainant prayed that the bill may be directed to be cancelled and pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and also costs.

          3. The opposite parties filed their version and changed that on 17.4.04, the vigilance wing already inspected the premises on the front side of the house a computer institution and detected that  “Vin Soft System” was functioning and the power was being taken as LT IV and penal bill issued accordingly.  Therefore, the petition may be dismissed with costs.

          4. The Forum below raised 2 points:-

          1. Whether the respondents can be justified in changing the tariff?

          2. Reliefs and costs?

          5. The evidence consists of Ext.P1,P2 & Ext.R1 to R4 respectively.

          6. The Forum below found that the reasons stated in the counter it cannot be justified in changing the tariff without giving an opportunity to the consumer to apply for separate connection for the extra load.  It has to be remembered that the wording is  “when the  connected load other than domestic use in such cases exceeds above said 20%, such loads shall be segregated and separate service connection obtained under  appropriate tariff”.  The petitioner is entitled to get the impugned bill cancelled.

          In the result, the forum below directed the opposite parties to cancel the impugned bill and to pay Rs.1,500/- as costs   which can be adjusted in future bills.  The respondents are at liberty to issue a fresh bill separately showing domestic consumption and consumption exceeding 20% separately and charge rates at LT 1 tariff and LT iV separately.  They shall issue a notice give an opportunity  to the consumer to apply for separate connection for the non domestic purposes.

          On this day this appeal came before this Commission for final hearing, the counsel for the appellant is present.  There is no representation for the respondent/complainant.    This Commission heard in detail and perused the entire records available in the case records.  The counsel for the appellant argued on the grounds of the appeal memorandum that the impugned order passed by the forum below is illegal and in according with the provisions of the electricity Act and supply Code.  It is liable to be quashed.  His main contention is that this is a case of electricity theft committed by the complainant.  So, the proceeding taken by the appellants only as per the provisions of the law but, this is not a case of misuse of energy.   We are not seeing any apparent error  in the order passed by the Forum below.  There is no reason to interfere in the order passed  by the Forum. But we are interfering only in the   order regarding the award of costs in the proceedings.

          In the result, this appeal is allowed in part and set aside the order of the cost of Rs.1,500/-.  Other provision of the order passed by the forum below is confirmed.  Both parties are directed to suffer their own respective dhasti.  The points of the appeal discussed and answered accordingly. 

M.K.ABDULLA SONA --  MEMBER

s/L                                    JUSTICE  K.R.UDAYABHANU  --  PRESIDENT