KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO. 72/2008 JUDGMENT DATED:09..02..2010. PRESENT SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1.Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, KSEB, Kondotty, Malappuram. : APPELLANTS 2.KSEB, Repd. By its Secretary, Vydhuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Trivandrum. (By Adv: Sri.S.Balachandran) Vs. Prakasan, N.V, S/o Govindan, Naduveettil house, Kodangad, : RESPONDENT Kondotty – 673 638. (By Adv:Sri.Amaravila Venugopalan Nair) JUDGMENT SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated:15/2/2008 passed by CDRF, Malappuram in OP:121/01. The complaint therein was filed by the respondent herein against the appellants/opposite parties alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in their failure to change the tariff from LT VII A to LT VII B. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version contending that there was no deficiency of service on their part. Before the Forum below Exts.A1 to A8 documents were produced from the side of the complainant. No evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. On an appreciation of the facts, circumstances and documentary evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order directing the opposite parties to change the tariff of the Consumer No:10002 from LT VII A to LT VII B and pay compensation of Rs.5000/- with cost of Rs.750/-. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties therein. We heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He categorically admitted the fact that the opposite parties in their written version expressed their readiness to change the tariff from LT VII A to LT VII B. During the course of arguments we felt the necessity of personal appearance of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Kondotty who is the concerned officer to take necessary steps to get the tariff changed from LT VII A to LT VII B. So, as per the direction of this Commission the present Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Kondotty, KSEB has also appeared before this Commission. He insisted for submission of a written request by the owner of the building who is the registered consumer of the connection with consumer No:10002. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether the respondent/complainant is entitled to get the tariff changed from LT VII A to LT VII B.? 2. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in insisting for a written request from the registered consumer/ owner of the building? 3. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order dated:15/2/2008 passed by CDRF, Malappuram in OP:121/01? Point Nos:1 to 3:- Admittedly the respondent/complainant is the person in occupation of the premises where the Electricity connection with consumer No:10002 is provided. The present tariff made applicable to the complainant is LT VII A. There is no dispute that at present the connected load to consumer No:10002 has been reduced and thereby the aforesaid electricity connection should be one under LT VII B. The Assistant Executive Engineer who appeared in person has also admitted the fact that at present the connected load provided for consumer NO:10002 is within the limits so as to change the tariff from LT VII A to LT VII B. The only problem or difficulty facing the opposite parties to change the tariff from LT VII A to LT VII B is the failure of the registered consumer to make a written request for change of tariff. There can be no dispute that the registered consumer namely, the owner of the building is not on cordial terms with the respondent/complainant who is the tenant of the building. The Assistant executive Engineer Mr.Vijayakumar.C.R has also submitted that on 2/2/2010 the registered consumer approached him and threatened him and he insisted to keep the tariff under LT VII A. It is to be noted that the respondent/complainant is the person in occupation and possession of the premises and he is enjoying the electricity supplied to the said premises with consumer No:10002. Admittedly the respondent/complainant has been remitting energy charges for the energy consumed for Consumer No:10002. The opposite parties have been receiving the energy charges from the respondent/complainant. The definition given for ‘consumer’ under the provisions of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy would make it clear that the respondent/complainant is to be considered as a consumer. Thus, the request of the respondent/complainant for changing the tariff from LT VII A to LT VII B is to be allowed. It is also to be noted that the consumer who is in fact consuming the energy will be benefited by the change of tariff from LT VII A to VII B. So, the request of the respondent/complainant being the consumer of energy to get the tariff changed from LT VII A to VII B can be considered as a just and reasonable claim. Forum below has rightly directed the opposite parties to change the tariff from LT VII A to VII B. We do not find any sustainable or tenable reason or ground to interfere with the aforesaid direction given by the Forum below. An important aspect to be noted at this juncture is the categoric admission made by the opposite parties in their written version expressing their readiness and willingness to change the tariff from LT VII A to LT VII B provided the connected load is reduced to 500 watts. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, KSEB, Kondotty has also admitted the fact that at present the respondent/complainant who is in occupation and enjoying the benefit of the electricity connection has reduced the connected load and that the complainant is entitled to get the tariff changed from LT VII A to VII B. It is pertinent to note that before the Forum below the opposite parties had no case that there must be a written request from the registered consumer or owner of the building. The aforesaid stand was taken only subsequently. The aforesaid attitude or approach adopted by the appellants/opposite parties cannot be entertained or appreciated. The respondent/complainant is legitimately entitled to get the tariff changed from LT VII A to VII B. He is to be treated as consumer as far as the Consumer No:10002 is concerned. So, the aforesaid claim of the respondent/complainant is upheld and the impugned order passed by the Forum below on that respect is confirmed. The 1st appellant/1st opposite party, the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, KSEB, Kondotty is directed to change the tariff from LT VII A to VII B with immediate effect at any rate within two days from today. The Forum below has also ordered compensation of Rs.5000/- for the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. There can be no doubt that the appellants/opposite parties were very adamant in not changing the tariff from LT VII A to VII B. Even after filing of this appeal, the appellants/opposite parties were taking unnecessary contentions so as to cause delay in changing the tariff from LT VII A. There can be no doubt that the respondent/ complainant suffered inconvenience and financial loss on account of the adamant attitude adopted by the appellants/opposite parties. Any how, we are of the view that the compensation of Rs.5000/- ordered by the Forum below is on the higher side. And so, the compensation is reduced to Rs.2000/-. It is made clear that the 1st opposite party/ Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, KSEB, Kondotty will be personally liable to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent/complainant in the event of his failure to change the tariff from LT VII A to LT VII B. It is also made further clear that the said compensation of Rs.10,000/- is to be paid by the 1st opposite party, the Assistant Executive Engineer, Mr.Vijayakumar, Electrical Major Section, KSEB, Kondotty from his own pocket. In other words, he will be personally liable to pay the said compensation of Rs.10,000/- if he failed to change the tariff from L.T.VII A to VII B as directed above. The foregoing discussions and findings thereon would make it clear that the impugned order passed by the Forum below is to be modified as indicated above. Thereby the direction to the opposite parties to change the tariff of Consumer No:10002 from LT VII A to VII B is confirmed. The compensation of Rs.5000/- ordered by the Forum below is reduced to Rs.2000/- with cost of Rs.750/-. The 1st appellant/opposite party is directed to change the tariff from LT VII A to VII B within two days from today. He will be made personally liable to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent/complainant in the event of his failure to change the tariff as directed by this commission. In the result the appeal is disposed of as indicated above. The impugned order is modified. As far as the present appeal is concerned there will be no order as to costs. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER VL S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR: MEMBER | 
