By Sri. M.S. Sasidharan, Member:
The complainant’s case is that he is a consumer of the respondents vide consumer No.8245/A3/22. He has been paying the electricity charges without any default since 1994. He paid Rs.601/ on 4.3.06, Rs.623/- on 4.5.06, Rs.581/- on 29.6.06, Rs.616/- on 1.9.06 and Rs.601/- on 3.11.06. But the respondents issued an adjustment invoice No.57261 dt. 25.1.07 informing the complainant to pay Rs.14,659/- on or before 8.2.07 or the supply will be disconnected. It is illegal to give such a notice unilaterally to a consumer who pays the electricity bills given to him on every month. Hence the complaint is filed requesting to set aside the bill.
2. Averments in the counter are that the electricity connection No.8245/Ae/22 was availed to K.T. Simon, Chorus Offset Printers, Guruvayur. The complainant has to inform the respondents that he is using the electricity connection and has to apply for transferring the ownership. But he failed to do that. And no agreement has been made between the respondent and the complainant. The tariff availed to the connection was VII B. The complainant was running a financial establishment which comes under the higher rate of VI C Tariff. Since it is quite illegal, the disputed bill was issued and the complainant is liable to pay the bill. The respondents are also liable to comply the directions from the Audit Officers. Hence dismiss the complaint.
3. The points for consideration are:
(1) Is the complainant entitled to pay Ext. P1 bill?
(2) Other reliefs and costs.
4. The evidence consists ofr Exts. P1 to P6 and Ext. R1 and R2. No oral evidence has been adduced by the complainant and the respondents.
5. Points: The complainant has been paying the electricity bills given to him without making any default. But he was issued with Ext. P1 bill informing him to pay Rs.14,659/-. The complainant claimed that issuing such a unilateral bill is illegal. The counter arguments are that the disputed electricity connection is availed by Sri. K.T. Simon, Chorus Offset Printers, Guruvayur. The complainant has taken the connection from him. But it has not been informed to the respondents. And the complainant has not apply for transferring the ownership. No agreement is executed with the complainant. Since the complainant is consuming electricity in a higher rate of tariff than the sanctioned one he is liable to pay the Ext. P1 bill.
6. The complainant has stated that he is a consumer of the respondents. But he has not stated how did he get the ownership of the electricity connection? Ext. R1 reveals that the connection was availed by Simon to operate an offset press. The complainant admits that he is managing a financial investment firm. Hence he is liable to pay the Ext. P1 bill in the higher rate of tariff.
7. In the result the complaint stands dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 16th day of November 2011.
