KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL 

     COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

                                                 APPEAL  NO:857/2006

                              JUDGMENT DATED:07..04..2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA                                      : MEMBER

1.The Secretary,

  KSEB, Thiruvananthapuram.

2.The Assistant Executive Engineer,

  KSEB, Electrical Section,                                               : APPELLANTS

  Vandanmedu, Puttady.

3.The Executive Engineer,

  KSEB, Electrical Major Section,

  Kattappana.

(By Adv: Sri.V.S. Vineeth Kumar)

            Vs.

K.Muraleedharan Pillai,

Sreenilayam, Mali.P.O,                                                      : RESPONDENT

Maniyaranpara, Vandanmedu,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: Sri.K.Baiju)

                                                JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

The appellants are the opposite parties/KSEB in CC:100/06 in the file of CDRF, Idukki.  The appellant is under orders to provide an opportunity to the complainant to be heard before changing the tariff.

2. The case of the complainant is that his tariff has been changed from LT IV to LT VII A arbitrarily and issued a huge bill.  He had represented the matter but they have not considered his complaints.

3. The opposite parties have filed version contending that originally the tariff was LT IV as it is categorized as an SSI unit for cardamom de-hydration, white pepper processing and de-hydration of green pepper.  He has installed only one cardamom drier.  It was represented that the above machine is sufficient for white pepper processing also.  On 11/5 the section squad inspected the premises and it was found that the consumer is using the energy only for cardamom drying; and white pepper processing is not done.  Hence he was directed to install the TOD meter and the tariff was changed as he will not be entitled to be categorised under tariff LT-IV.

4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1, Exts.P1 to P14 and R1.

5.The Forum has only noted that on account of the change of tariff the complainant was put to higher financial liability and hence he is entitled to be heard before changing the tariff.  The Forum has issued such a direction only.

6. In the circumstances we find that there is no scope for interference in the order of the Forum.  The appellant is directed to comply with the direction issued by the Forum.  The appeal is dismissed.

Office is directed to forward the LCR to the Forum urgently.

JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

VL.

M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER