IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM

Dated this the 28^th day of October, 2022

Present:  Sri. Manulal V.S. President

Smt. Bindhu R. Member

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member

C C No. 93/2021 (filed on 26-03-2021)

Petitioner                                            :         George Varghese,

                                                                   Vaithara House,

                                                                   Amayannoor P.O.

                                                                   Kottayam - 686019

                                                                             Vs.    

Opposite Parties                                 : (1)    KSEB, Ayarkunnam Section,

                                                                   Rep. by its Assistant Executive

                                                                   Engineer, Ayarkunnam P.O

                                                                   Kottayam – 686564.

                                                               (2) Assistant Engineer,

                                                                   KSEB Electrical Section,

                                                                   Ayarkunnam P.O

                                                                   Kottayam – 686564.

                                                              (3) Ajeesh Raveendran,

                                                                   Meter Reader,

                                                                   KSEB Electrical Section,

                                                                   Ayarkunnam P.O.  Kottayam

                                                                   Pin – 686564.

                                                               (4) Secretary,

                                                                   KSEB Vydyuthi Bhavan,

                                                                   Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram    

                                                                   (For Op1 to 4, Adv. Malavika

                                                                   Suresh and Adv. Deepthy S. Nath)

O  R  D  E  R

Smt. Bindhu R. Member

The complaint is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The complainant is the consumer of the opposite party with consumer number 1146320009541. As the complainant consumes the electricity for domestic purpose the tariff applicable to supply of electrical energy is LT-1A Domestic. As the complainant is a self-employed person in the small scale textile

marketing and sales, he used to store apparels in his house. The total connected load of the residential building of the complainant is 3 kilowatts, out of the same

the complainant is using 280 watts towards the connected load of the two room for storing the apparels. As per the gazette notification dated 8.7.2019 in OA no.15/2018 domestic customers are allowed to utilize electrical energy in the portion of their residence for their own use for purposes other than domestic if the connected load for the purposes other than for domestic in their premises does not exceed 20% of the total connected load or 1000watts which ever is less. From

9.7.2020 to 8.3.2021, the complainant was charged with commercial tariff LT-7A which is supposed to be charged only for the commercial industries.                          On 20.01.2021 the complainant made a complaint stating above discrepancies to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. But the opposite parties never considered the said complaint. The opposite parties obtained an amount of Rs.4,818/- from this complainant by charging a higher tariff than that of ordinary tariff. The said acts of the opposite parties amount to unfair trade practice as per Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act,2019.

The statement of account

The complainant is entitled to get the reimbursement of Rs.4,818/-with 12% interest or to get the amount adjusted in the forthcoming bills and for compensation. Hence this complaint is filed.

Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed version jointly through the Assistant Executive engineer, Electrical sub division Manarcaud.                                The opposite party admits that the complainant is a consumer of them.                               The connection given to the complainant was a single phase service connection for domestic purpose under the category of LT IA tariff. The total registered connected load sanctioned at the premises of the consumer is 2460 watts.                           On 16-07-2020 the meter reader of the Ayarkkunnam section recorded in the Anomally register that a textile shop is functioning in the premises of Con.No.9541, which was billed under domestic tariff. On inspection it is noticed that a textile shop was functioning in two rooms of the complainant’s house in the name and style “Adelia Fashions” and garments is displayed in front of the house. The load connected in these two rooms are

Tube light 2 nos @40 w ... 80Watts

LED light 2 nos @ 20W.....40 W

Fans 2 nos @ 60W...120Watts

Computer (UPS) 1 no @600 VA ==540W

Thus the total connected load used for commercial purpose is 780 Watts,

whereas the registered connected load of the premises is only 2460 Watts.

The tariff of different categories of consumers are determined by the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (KSERC) under section 62 of the Kerala State Electricity Act 2003.  The tariff applicable at the time of inspection was the one ordered by the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission on 08-07-2019 in OA No.15/2018 as published in the Kerala Gazettee (Extra Ordinary) as per No.2292 in Volume VIII dt.30-09-2019.

As per the Low Tension-I Domestic LT-1 tariff note 4, “Domestic consumers shall be allowed to utilize electrical energy in a portion of their residence for their own use for purposes other than for domestic, if the connected load for the purposes other than for domestic, in their premises does not exceed 20% of the total connected load or 1000 watts whichever is less.  When connected load other than for domestic use in such cases exceeds 20% of the total connected load or 1000 watts whichever is less, such loads shall be segregated and separate connection shall be obtained under appropriate tariff.  When this is not done, the tariff applicable to the whole service connection shall be at the appropriate tariff applicable to the connected load used for purposes other than domestic, if such tariff is higher than the tariff for LT-I category”

As it was evident that the complainant was running a textile shop in the said rooms and domestic consumers were allowed to utilize electrical energy in the portion of their residence for their own use only. The connected load used for the commercial purpose exceeded 20% of their sanctioned connected load in domestic category. Moreover, the petitioner had not applied for a separate connection, the whole service connection was charged in LT VIIA tariff as stipulated in tariff order for the period from 28-07-2020 to 29-01-2021.

The complainant later made a complaint before the first and second opposite parties regarding the tariff change of his premises. He had been advised either to take a separate connection or textile shop or to stop functioning of the textile shop in his premises and to apply for tariff change. After that he had submitted an application for tariff change in his premises on 27-01-2021. On field verification it was noticed that the display and the boards were removed and as the commercial activities were stopped, the tariff was changed to LT IA with effect from 29-01-2021.So there is no unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

The complainant adduced evidence through proof affidavit along with exhibits A1 to A4 and the opposite parties produced proof affidavit and Exhibits B1 to B6.

After perusing the pleadings and evidence we are inclined to frame the following points:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service elucidated by the complainant?

2. And if so what are the reliefs?

Points 1 and 2

1. The complainants case is that he being a consumer of the opposite parties, was being charged for a domestic connection but during 8-7-2020 to 8-1-2021, all of a sudden the tariff changed to commercial and he had to pay in excess. The opposite parties contended that as the complainant changed the nature of use of the electricity as he run a textile shop by exhibiting a board in front of his house. The person who took meter reading intimated this and after recording in the anomaly register the consumer was noticed and an inspection was conducted. Thereafter the tariff was changed to commercial. Later when the complainant stopped the commercial activity by removing the board etc., the opposite parties changed the tariff back to domestic.

2. The opposite parties admit that the consumer is allowed to use 20% extra of the connected load for other usages. But here the complainant used 780 watts for the commercial use instead of the 492 W which is permissible. The opposite parties have produced Exhibit B1, which is the consumer history of the complainant,B2 the copy of the anomaly register in which it is recorded that there is a textile shop in the house of the complainant, B3a photograph of the textile shop board, and B4 is a report prepared by one Annie Jose, sub engineer. Exhibit B4 though produced is nil dated and not countersigned by any higher official. There is no other proof that this report was timely prepared and as per the procedure. All the other documents B1,B2 and B3 are admissible that the complainant was running a textile shop in his house. 

3. Now, the point to be looked into is whether the action taken against the complainant for using the electricity for unauthorised purposes were as per the procedure stipulated in the Kerala Electricity Supply code and Electricity Act.

4. As per Regulation 97 of the Kerala Electricity Regulation

 “97.Suo moto reclassification of consumer category by the licensee –

1. If it is found that a consumer has been wrongly classified in a particular category or the purpose of supply as mentioned in the agreement has changed or the consumption of power has exceeded the limit of that category as per the tariff order of the Commission or the category has changed consequent to a revision of tariff order, the licensee may suo moto reclassify the consumer under appropriate category.
2. The consumer shall be informed of the proposed reclassification through a notice with a notice period of thirty days to file objections, if any.
3. The licensee after due consideration of the reply of the consumer, if any, may reclassify the consumer appropriately”

6. But the opposite parties have not served any notice to the complainant before changing the tariff from domestic to commercial. Ex.B5 is claimed as the notice sent to the complainant by the opposite parties but no proof to show that it was sent properly or the complainant had received the same. No postal records have been produced along with the notice. Moreover, in the B5 notice itself it is noted that the tariff of the complainant has been changed. The tariff was changed on the same date of issue.  As per Ext.B4 report the tariff was changed  on 08-07-20 and the date of B5 notice is 28-07-20.  The B5 notice if sent was only after several days after the date of tariff change.  So the opposite party has not complied the procedure stipulated in Regulation 97. Exhibit B4is said to be a report prepared by the sub engineer but there is no mahasar seen prepared.

7. Hence we find that there is deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in not sending a proper notice to the complainant before the tariff change to file his objection if any. The complainant has submitted a detailed table of rates with the difference of payment.  But this is not challenged by the opposite party nowhere in the version or in evidence.

In the light of above discussion we allow the complaint and the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.4,818/- or adjust the amount collected in excess Rs.4818/- in the forthcoming bills and pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant.

          Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of Order,  if not complied as directed, the compensation amount will carry interest @ 9% interest till realization

          Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28^th day of October, 2022

Smt. Bindhu R. Member                  Sd/-

Sri. Manulal V.S. President             Sd/-

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member                  Sd/-

Appendix

Exhibits marked from the side of complainant

A1 – Copy of gazattee notification dtd.08-07-19 in OA No.15/18

A2 – Copy of bill issued by opposite party

A3- Copy of letter dtd.05-11-21 by complainant to Public Information Officer,

          Electrical Section, Aytakunnam

A4 – Reply letter by Public Information Officer, Electrical Section, Aytakunnam

           to the complainant

Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party

B1 – Consumer profile of 1146320009541 from website of opposite party

B2 – Copy of anoraly register (page No.52)

B3- Photocopy of front of Adelia Fashions, Amayannoor

B3 (a) - Photocopy of inside of Adelia Fashions, Amayannoor

B4- Copy of report by Jinu Annie Jose, Sub Engineer

B5- Notice dtd.28-07-2020 by 2^nd opposite party to complainant

B6 – Application for tariff change

                                                                                                By Order

                                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                               Assistant Registrar