BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 20/04/2011

Date of Order : 13/02/2013

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 200/2011

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The facts of the complainant's case are as follows :-

The complainant is undertaking the business for earning his livelihood. The complainant availed an electric connection bearing Consumer No. 9158-9 from the opposite parties. He has been remitting the electricity charges regularly. The facts while so on 11-04-2011, the complainant was served with a registered demand notice cum disconnection notice dated 30-03-2011 demanding to remit Rs. 1,25,985/- on or before 30-04-2011. It is stated in the notice that Rs. 1,25,985/- is the balance amount for the period from December 2007 to March 2011 due to wrong calculation of tariff. There is no mistake for the calculation of the bill under LT IV. The complainant filed appeal against the disputed bill before the 2^nd opposite party to which there was no response. Thus, the complainant is before us with the following reliefs against the opposite parties :

1. To set aside the impugned bill.

2. To pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/-.

3. To direct the opposite parties to issue the future bills under LT IV tariff.

    

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

The firm is functioning as a commercial entity and a number of workers are employed there. The complainant is not a consumer within the ambit of Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant was given a 3 phase connection on 19-02-2002 under LT VII A tariff. Later, the tariff was changed to LT IV (Industrial) tariff on the basis of B.O. (Fin) No. 1462/02/TRAC/TO-1/2002 dated 24-10-2002 as the audio/video cassette recording CD recording units with SSI registration were categorized under LT IV (Industrial) tariff. But as per the tariff notified by the Hon'ble State Electricity Regularity Commission dated 27-11-2007, the audio/video cassette recording/duplication units, CD recording unit were categorized under LT VII A (Commercial). Due to oversight, the complainant was continued under LT IV category. At the instance of the Regional Audit Officer, the bill in question has been issued. The complainant is liable to remit the amount as per the disputed bill.

3. The witness for the complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 and A2 were marked on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Exts. B1 to B6 were marked on the part of the opposite parties. Heard the counsel for the complainant and the authorised representative of the opposite parties.

4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows :-

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act?

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

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to continue with LT IV tariff?

4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- from the opposite parties?

5. Point No. i. :- According to the complainant, he is a play back singer and has been running the Studio by name “alap recording studio” for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. The opposite parties contended that the complainant is conducting the studio for commercial purpose and he cannot be termed as a consumer as stated in Section 2 (1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The opposite parties relied on a decision rendered by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Sapna Photostat Vs. Excel Marketing Corpon & Anr. 2011 (2) CPR 35 (NC).

6. In the instant case, apart from the averments of the opposite party in their version, nothing is on record to substantiate and prove their contentions. So, the decision quoted finds no place in this case. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we are only to hold that the complainant is a consumer and the complaint is maintainable in this Forum.

7. Point No. ii. :- Ext. A1 the impugned bill has been issued on the basis of Ext. B1 Audit Report of the Regional Officer of the opposite party dated 20-08-2010. The note as per Ext. B1 is as follows :-

“Wrong classification of Tariff.

Tariff Applicable to Audio recording units is LT VII A. So revise bill from 12/2007 accordingly and intimate remittance details to audit office.”

8. Admittedly, the electricity connection had been availed by the complainant after executing Ext. B6 agreement dated 31-02-2001 in favour of the opposite parties. In Ext. B6, the complainant stated that the purpose of availing the connection is for 'commercial'. Avvordingly, the connection has granted under commercial tariff. Subsequently, as per Ext. B4 the connection was changed to Low Tension IV (LT IV) Industry. Accordingly, the complainant has been enjoying tariff OT-IV Industry till date. However, as per Ext. A5 Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission Schedule of Tariff and Terms and Conditions for retail supply by K.S.E. Board, the category of LT-IV Industry to which the complainant was included had been changed to LT-VII A with effect from 01-12-2007. Though Ext. B5 was in force with effect from 01-12-2007, the opposite parties failed to change the tariff of the complainant from LT IV A to LT VII A reasons stated. The repair and remedy of which is their own business. However as per Ext. B1, the Audit Officer noticed the same and hence the impugned bill.

9. On the basis of Ext. B1, the opposite parties retrospectively calculated the amount under LT VII A tariff from the date of implementation of Ext. B5 ie. 01-02-2007. Now, the present demand as per Ext. A1 is barred by limitation, since the same was admittedly calculated from December 2007. So we have no hesitation to set aside Ext. A1 bill, since it is barred by limitation as per Regulation 18 (8) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2005. However, it is made clear that the opposite parties are at liberty to levy the charges under LT VII A strictly complying with the provision of Regulation 18 (8).

10. Point No. iii. :- The complainant contended that he is entitled to continue with LT IV Industry, since he is not conducting audio/video cassette recording/duplication units, CD recording units etc. During the proceedings in this Forum at the instance of the complainant vide order date 20-04-2011, this Forum directed the 3^rd opposite party to permit the complainant to remit the regular bills under LT IV tariff till disposal of the complaint. If the complainant is not using the premises as stated in Ext. B6, he is at liberty to approach the opposite parties to get the tariff changed to suit his purpose within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order till then order in I.A. No. 232/2011 dated 20-04-2011 would be in force, failing which the order in I.A. shall be vacated and the opposite parties are free to move in accordance with law.

11. Point No. iv. :- Balance of convenience having been met justifiably, no order for compensation is called for.

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

1. We set aside Ext. A1.

2. The opposite parties are at liberty to issue bills under LT VII A tariff strictly in accordance with Regulation 18 (8) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2005 from the date of Ext. A1 upto the date of change of category by the complainant.

3. The complainant is directed to take steps to apply for change of tariff within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the order in I.A. No. 232/2011 dated 20-04-2011 shall be vacated as observed above as well.

The order shall be complied with, in line with the above directions.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 13^th day of February 2013.

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 :: Nil

=========