BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 18/03/2010

Date of Order : 29/10/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 178/2010

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The case of the complainant is as follows :

The complainant availed himself of an electric connection for agricultural purposes under LT V category. He has been using the connection for the operation of a 1.5 HP motor for the last 30 years. The facts being so on 24-02-2010, the officials of the 1^st opposite party inspected the premises of the complainant and prepared a mahazar alleging misuse of electricity other than for agricultural purposes. Thereafter on 27-02-2010, the 2^nd opposite party issued the bill in question to the tune of Rs. 12,451/- to the complainant. The complainant caused a letter to the 2^nd opposite party to cancel the bill, but the 2^nd opposite party did not pay any attention to the same. In the meantime, the 2^nd opposite party converted the tariff from LT V to LT 7A and issued bills based on the fresh tariff. Thus, the complainant is before us seeking the following reliefs:

1. To set aside the disputed electricity bills.

2. To re-instate LT 5 A tariff.

3. To get compensation and costs of the proceedings from the opposite parties.

2. The version of the opposite parties :

The complainant was having an agricultural connection under LT V tariff. However, on inspection it was found that the said connection was used for pumping water to nearby building for domestic purpose and to a shopping complex. On having detected misuse, it was changed to LT VII A tariff. Thereafter, a penal bill amounting to Rs. 12,451/- was issued to the complainant. The complainant had placed an objection to the bill, it was duly considered heard and disposed off. The opposite party is fully justified in issuing the penal bill under Section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003. The complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as claimed for.

3. The complainant and his witnesses were examined as PW's 1 to 3 respectively. Exts. A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the complainant. The 2^nd opposite party was examined as DW1. At the instance of the complainant, an expert commissioner was appointed by this Forum and his reports were marked as Exts. C1 and C2. Heard the counsel for the parties.

4. The points that arose for consideration are :-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the impugned electricity bills set aside?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the tariff changed from LT VII A to LT V?

3. Compensation and costs of the proceedings?

5. Point No. i. :- According to the opposite parties, on inspection dated 24-02-2010, the officials of the 1^st opposite party found that the complainant had been misusing the connection granted under LTV category (Agricultural purpose) for commercial and domestic purposes. Accordingly they prepared Ext. A2 mahazar and on the basis of the mahazar, they issued Ext. A3 bill. Thereafter, they converted the tariff from LT V to LT VII A and issued Exts. A4 to A8 bills.

6. Now, the question that arises is whether Ext. A2 be relied upon or not. Admittedly, none of the officials present at the time of preparation of the mahazar had mounted the box to prove the contents in Ext. A2 mahazar. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malay Kumar Ganguly Vs. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee and Ors. 2009 (4) KLT Suppl. 92 (SC) = (2009) 9 SCC 221 held that a document becomes in admissible unless author thereof is examined. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the nature of the purported misuse of electricity or explanation thereto does not find a place in Ext. A2 for non-mentioning thereof. The officials at least ought to have specifically mentioned the nature of manner of misuse of electricity in Ext. A2 in which they failed. No other specific evidence is before us to prove the alleged misuse of electricity. An expert commissioner was deputed by this Forum at the instance of the complainant, he was examined as PW2 and his reports were marked as Exts. C1 and C2. PW2 as well deposed that he could not find any misuse of electricity by the complainant which has not been challenged by the opposite parties. No averments to the contrary.

7. Point No. ii. :- Since the opposite parties fail to establish that the complainant has misused the electricity, he is not liable to pay the amounts as per the impugned bills squarely in law which entitles him to get the tariff changed from LT VII to LT V.

8. Point No. iii. :- The primary grievance of the complainant having been met adequately orders as to compensation and costs are not called for.

9. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows :

1. We set aside Exts. A3 to A8 the disputed bills for the reasons stated above.

2. The opposite parties shall convert the tariff of the complainant from LT VII to LT V as observed above.

3. It is made clear that the opposite parties are at liberty to issue fresh arrear bill to the complainant under LT V tariff, if any arrears exists.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29^th day of October 2011.

Forwarded/By order, Sd/- A. Rajesh,President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil

=========