BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 09/12/2011

Date of Order : 27/08/2012

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 683/2011

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The case of the complainant is as follows :

The complainant is a Goldsmith. The complainant is residing along with his wife and 2 children. The nephew of the complainant is also residing with the complainant's family, who is a student of Holy Matha Engineering College. The friends of the complainant's nephew used to visit the complainant's residence occasionally. The facts while so on 25-11-2011, the 2^nd opposite party visited the premises of the complainant alleging that the complainant is accommodating paying guests in the residential building. Accordingly, the 2^nd opposite party issued an assessment bill to the tune of Rs. 10,118/- by changing the tariff from domestic to non-domestic. The complainant was compelled to sign on some documents. The change of tariff from domestic to the non-domestic tariff is totally against the real facts. On 03-12-2011, the complainant submitted a complaint with the 1^st opposite party, but they did not pay any attention towards the complaint. Thus, the complainant is before us to get the assessment bill set aside and also to reinstate the tariff non-domestic to domestic. This complaint hence.

2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows :-

On the basis of the instruction received from the Chief Vigilance Officer, K.S.E. Board, Thiruvananthapuram, the 2^nd opposite party conducted an inspection at the premises of the complainant on 25-11-2011. During the inspection, the complainant was present there and he said that two engineering college students are staying with him in the upstairs of the residential building as paying guests. He also informed that they have been staying there for the last 5 months. Site mahazar had been prepared and read over to him. He acknowledged the mahazar and a copy has been served. The tariff of the complainant's electric connection was changed from domestic tariff to LT VI B as applicable for paying guests accommodation. Thereafter, a penal bill amounting to Rs. 10,118/- has been served to the complainant. Later on 03-12-2011, the complainant approached the Executive Engineer with a petition. The initial assessment given is only a provisional assessment. The officials of the opposite parties have acted in accordance with the Electricity Act and Rules. The complaint is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.

3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A3 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Ext. B1 was marked on the side of the opposite parties. Heard the counsel for the complainant.

4. The points that came up for consideration are :-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the tariff changed from LT VI B to I-A domestic?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the assessment bill set aside?

5. Point Nos. i. & ii. :- During the proceedings in this Forum, at the instance of the complainant vide order in I.A. No 734/2011 dated 09-12-2011, this Forum directed the opposite parties to refrain from taking any further action in Ext. A1 disputed bill. The opposite parties duly complied with the above direction.

6. Ext. B1 is the site mahazar prepared by the 2^nd opposite party on 25-11-2011, during inspection at the premises of the complainant. Even according to the opposite parties, the complainant himself said that he has permitted 2 students to stay at the upstairs of the residential building as guests for the last 5 months prior to the inspection. The opposite party does not have a case that they have found any student at the time of inspection in the premises of the complainant. So, there is no corroborate evidence either in Ext. B1 or any other evidence before us to substantiate the contention of the opposite party that the complainant had permitted 2 students as paying guests in the upstairs. The officer who prepared Ext. B1 mahazar does not mount the box for his own reasons, especially since the complainant maintains that while he signed in the mahazar the papers were blank. In the above circumstances, we are nowhere otherwise to hold that the complainant is not legally liable to pay the amount as per Ext. A1 under the tariff LT VI -B.

7. In view of the above, we pass the following order :-

1. We set aside Ext. A1 series the impugned bill dated 30-11-2011.

2. The complainant is entitled to continue with the tariff I-A (Domestic).

3. The opposite parties are at liberty to issue a fresh bill to the complainant under I-A domestic category, if the complainant has not remitted the charges under domestic tariff, if any within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 27^th day of August 2012.

Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

=========