KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO: 459/2004 JUDGMENT DATED. 31/05/2010 PRESENT SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1. The Asst. Engineer, Electrical Section, KSEB, Pantheeramkavu, Calicut-673 019. 2. The Chief Engineer, KSEB, Distribution North, : APPELLANTS Gandhi Road, Calicut-11. 3. The Chairman, KSEB, Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, TVPM. (By Adv:Sri.B.Sakthidharan Nair) Vs. P.K.Seethi, S/o Chekkutty, Parambathkuzhi, : RESPONDENT Pantheeramkavu.P.O, Kozhikode-673 019. (By Adv:Sri.Shyam Padman) JUDGMENT SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER This appeal is filed by the opposite parties in OP:25/03 before the CDRF, Kozhikkode who are under orders to change the tariff of the complainant with immediate effect and to refund the amount collected in excess from the complainant from June 2001 onwards. It is aggrieved by the said directions that the opposite parties have come up in appeal calling for the interference of this commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum submitting that he is a consumer of the opposite parties under I(a) tariff and that he was regularly paying the bills and consequent to the issue of an excessive and exorbitant bill he filed an OP:386/01 before the Forum which was dismissed. However it is his case that the opposite parties had unilaterally changed the tariff to VII-A with effect from June 2001 and that he was compelled to pay the bills under threat of disconnection. Though the complainant had issued a registered notice, the 2nd opposite party took a recalcitrant attitude directing the complainant to submit a request and test report etc which according to the complainant is only to harass him. The complainant has also submitted that he was using the consumption only for domestic purpose and the opposite parties had no reasons to change his tariff from I(a) to VII-A. 3. The opposite parties filed version admitting the change of tariff. It was submitted by them that for changing the tariff from VII-A to I(a) the complainant was asked to produce test report and supplementary schedule of agreement along with the application which the complainant did not do and hence the tariff was not changed. Contending that there was no deficiency of service, the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 4. The evidence consisted of the documents produced by the complainant which were marked as Et.A1 to A6. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties vehemently argued before us that the Forum below had gone wrong in directing the opposite parties to change the tariff and to pay back the amounts remitted by the complainant in excess of the charges applicable for I(a) tariff. It is also submitted by him that the complainant had not produced and necessary documents before the opposite parties for changing the tariff and hence the opposite parties are justified in not changing the tariff. The learned counsel argued for the position that the order of the Forum below is per-se illegal and unsustainable and hence it is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below and argued before us that the opposite parties were bent upon harassing the complainant in one way or other. It is submitted by him that though the earlier complaint was dismissed the complainant had a genuine case that he was served with an excessive and exorbitant bill. It is his very case that the opposite party especially the 1st opposite party had changed the tariff of the complainant in June 2001 from I(a) to VII A without any reasons and that the complainant was not liable for submitting any application for changing the tariff. It is also argued by him that the 1st opposite party had changed the tariff to a higher tariff without any supporting reasons and it was not necessary for the complainant to submit any application for bringing back the tariff to I(a). He has also submitted before us that even in the version filed by the opposite parties the opposite parties had no case that the complainant was using the tariff for a different purpose other than domestic purpose and that they have only stated that the complainant had misused the use of electrical energy supplied by them. Hence it is his very case that the appeal is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs. 8. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent and also on perusing the records we find that it is the admitted case of both the parties that the complainant’s tariff was changed from LT I(a) to VII B. It is also seen that the opposite parties have not adduced any evidence to show that the complainant was misusing energy for a different purpose. Though it is stated in the version that the complainant was misusing energy the opposite parties have miserably failed in adducing evidence to the effect that there was misuse of energy by the complainant. There is also no site mehazar to show that the action of the opposite parties is just and proper. The bare statement that the complainant was misusing energy will not be enough for the opposite parties to change the tariff from I(a) to VII A. It is also noted that the opposite parties have changed the tariff without any cogent reasons. We find that the Forum below had appreciated the facts and circumstances in its proper perspective and has passed the impugned order directing the opposite parties to change the tariff immediately and to refund the amount collected in excess from the complainant. We do not find any grounds to interfere with the directions contained in the impugned order passed by the Forum below. In the result the appeal is dismissed. Thereby the order dated:11/3/2004 in OP:25/03 of CDRF, Kozhikkode is confirmed. In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER VL. | 
