KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.269/2017

JUDGEMENT DATED: 25.11.2024

(Against the order in C.C.No.312/2014 of the DCDRC, Idukki)

PRESENT:

APPELLANT:

(by Adv. Tom Joseph)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

(by Adv. Sreevaraham N.G. Mahesh)

JUDGEMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR  :  PRESIDENT

          The appellant is the complainant in C.C.No.312/2014 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Idukki (for short ‘the District Commission’).

2.       The appellant is running a milk chilling plant society, which is a charitable society to help the farmers to sell milk products.  The chilling unit was powered with electricity connection with LT IV tariff.  The connection was given on 23.08.2008.  On 16.04.2014, the Anti Power Theft Squad inspected the premises of the complainant and it was noted that the complainant’s plant should have been given LT VIIA tariff instead of LT IV tariff.  Accordingly, Exhibit P1 bill dated 30.04.2014 for Rs.1,75,074/-(Rupees One Lakh Seventy Five Thousand and Seventy Four only) was issued to the complainant, towards arrears.  Since the complainant was regularly making payment of the electricity bill, the complainant alleged that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing Exhibit P1 bill. 

3.       The opposite parties filed version contending that the tariff given to the complainant was LT IV tariff.  The said tariff was given on 23.08.2008 when the milk chilling plant of the complainant was given electricity connection.  However, there was a change in tariff as per order dated 01.12.2007 and without noticing that change in the tariff, LT IV tariff was given to the complainant when the electric connection was given to the premises of the complainant and in the said circumstances, the opposite parties wanted to change the tariff of the complainant from LT IV to LT VII A.  The opposite parties issued Exhibit P1 bill in accordance with the new tariff and hence there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite parties in this regard. 

4.       On the side of the complainant, Exhibits P1 to P4 were marked and on the side of the opposite parties Exhibits R1 to R6 were marked. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission directed the complainant to pay the amount covered by Exhibit P1 bill in instalments after deducting the amount already deposited before the District Commission.  Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant has filed this appeal.

5.       Heard both sides.  Perused the records.

6.       It is not disputed that the complainant is a charitable society, under which a milk chilling plant is functioning, for the purpose of helping the farmers to sell milk products.  The said chilling plant was given electric connection on 23.08.2008.  Then the tariff given was LT IV.  On 16.04.2014, the Anti Power Theft Squad inspected the premises of the complainant and prepared Exhibit R2 Mahazar, wherein the load being used in the premises of the complainant was clearly stated.  Item Nos. 1 to 8 in Exhibit R2 would clearly show that the load did not exceed 20% of the sanctioned load, which is 11033 watts.

7.       The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that since the chilling plant of the complainant does not consume electricity exceeding 20% of the total connected load, the complainant is entitled to retain the LT IV tariff as per the provisions under sub clause (e) of ‘LT IV industrial’ in Exhibit R1 and hence Exhibit P1 bill is not justified.  It is inter alia stated in Exhibit R1 ‘under LT VII A’ that the tariff for consumers such as Freezing Plants, Cold Storages and Milk Chilling Plants are regarded as commercial consumers.  However, sub clause (e) of ‘LT IV industrial’ in Exhibit R1 would show that the dairy farms with chilling, with or without chilling/freezing/cold storage activity shall be charged under industrial category provided the load is limited to 20% of the total connected load.  If it exceeds 20%, LT VII A shall be applicable.  Thus on a conjoint reading of sub clause (e) of ‘LT IV industrial’ and LT VII A in Exhibit R1, it is clear that if the load exceeds 20% of the connected load, then only the tariff will be shifted to LT VII A. 

8.       It is clear from Exhibit R2 that the connected/sanctioned load in the premises of the complainant is 11033 watts.  Exhibit R2 would further show that the load in the premises of the complainant is less than 20% of the total sanctioned load.  It is clear from item Nos. 1 to 8 in Exhibit R2 that the total load in the premises of the complainant is only 1646 watts, which is less than 20% of the sanctioned/connected load.  In the said circumstances, there can be no doubt that the complainant is entitled to continue with LT IV tariff as had been already granted to the complainant.  This being the position, the converting of LT IV tariff to LT VII A tariff was not justified and hence issuing of Exhibit P1 bill would amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

9.   In view of the above finding, we are not adverting to any other argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant.

10.     Having gone through the relevant inputs as discussed above, we are of the view that Exhibit P1 bill cannot be said to be legal and consequently, we set aside the order impugned.

In the result, the appeal stands allowed, the order impugned stands set aside and Exhibit P1 bill also stands set aside. The opposite parties shall pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) and costs of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from today, failing which the compensation would carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of default till realisation.  It is directed that if the complainant had already paid any amount pursuant to Exhibit P1 bill and as per the direction of the District Commission, the said amount shall be adjusted to the future bills. 

SL