SRI.K.VIJAYKUMARAN , PRESIDENT. The complaint for refund the of excess amount collected from the opp.party, compensation and costs. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant is a consumer of the opp.party who is consuming less than 20 units per month. Accordingly he was included in the non payment group. But some officers of the opp.party did not like it. At the instance of one Murali, Asst. Engineer this benefits was stopped with retrospective effect. The complainant informed him that the extensions the house were demolished and therefore the consumption is very low and so he requested to restore the benefit. But his request was rejected and he was included in the payment group. While so, the electric meter became faulty for 2 months and there was increase in the meter reading. The complainant explaining these facts applied to the Asst. Engineer in this regard who rectified the defect. Thereafter the meter reading increased and on the basis of that reading he remitted the current charges. In the subsequent months the consumption was less than 17 units . Hence the complaint for restoration of the benefit s, compensation and costs. The opp.parties filed a joint version contending as follows: The complainant is a consumer bearing No.2027 under the domestic tariff under Electrical Section, Karunagappally South. Domestic consumers whose connected load do not exceed 500 watts and average monthly consumption do not exceed 20 units are supplied electricity free of charge. If the connected load exceeds 500 watts or if the consumption exceeds 120 units in three consecutive bi-monthly readings the consumer have to pay for the entire consumption. During the period of July 1993 the opp.party found that the complainant’s . connected load had exceeded 500 watts and hence he was changed to payment group. The complainant had not given any application for including him in the none payment group. Hence complainant’s contention is denied. Even if his average consumption is less than 20 units per month he is not eligible for electricity free of charge if the connected load exceeds the limit of 500 watts. As per Order No.1976/1001 [plg.con.4322/2001] dated 24.9.2001, if the consumer submit a completion report with actual CL below 500 watts and if his plea is found genuine on verification and the consumption is below 20 units the consumer can be re-grouped under NPG from the date of application. These opp.parties have acted only in accordance with law. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. Hence opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint. This complaint was originally disposed of by the Forum against which Appeal No.963/04 was filed before the Hon’ble State Commission and the State Commission as per judgement dated 23.8.2006 remanded the case for fresh disposal. Points that would arise for consideration: 1. Whether the complainant connected load exceed 500 watts or not 2. Whether the consumption of electricity by the complainant exceeds 20 units. 3. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties 4. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 and 2 are examined. Ext.P1 to P4 are marked. For the opp.party DW.1 and 2 are examined. Ext. D1 and D2 are marked. Points Admittedly the Hon’ble State Commission has remanded this case for considering the question whether the connected load of the complainant exceeds 500 watts or not. The finding of this forum that the complainant is consuming less than 20 units per month is accepted by the State Commission. The complainant after remand examined PW.1 and marked Ext.P2 to P4. Ext. P3 is the site Mahazar prepared by DW.2 in respect of the house of the complainant. Ext.P3 shows that there are 4 light points one ceiling Fan and two 5 A plug points. Ext.P4 is the consumer installation completion report prepared by a licensed electrical contractor which also shows that there are 4 light points of 40 watts each one fan of 60 watt and two plugs of 60 watts each and the total connected load is 340 watts. There is nothing to disbelieve the connected load shown in Ext.P4. as the same is in conformity with Ext.P3 mahazar prepared by DW.1 DW.2 is the Engineer who prepared Ext.P3 site mahazar has admitted in cross examination that at the time when P3 was prepared on 6.11.2006 the connected load of the complainant was 340 watts. He has further admitted in cross examination that there is no document to show the connected load during the disputed period. He does not know whether the connected load was assessed in July 1993 or not or about the statement in the affidavit that in July 93 the connected load exceeded. He has no idea about the connected load during the disputed period. DW.2 has not denied the suggestion that during the disputed period the connected load was below 500 watts. No material worth believable was produced by the opp.party to prove that the connected load exceeded 500 watts during the disputed period or thereafter. From the evidence adduced by both sides, we find that the connected load of the complainant is below 500 watts . Evidence in this case would show that the inclusion of the name of the complainant in payment group is without any documents which is arbitrary exercise of power. For all that has been discussed above we find that the conduct of the opp.parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Point found accordingly. In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opp.parties to include the complainant in the non payment group and to refund the amount collected from the complainant. The opp.parties are also directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- towards costs. Dated this the 30th day of June, 2009. . I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – Shanmugha das PW.2. – Dipu List of documents for the opp.parties P1. – Bills P2. – Authorisation letter P3. – Site mahazar P4. – Report of a Licensed Electrician List of witnesses for the opp.party DW.1. – Pradeep.P.S. DW.2. – Joykutty List of documents for the opp.parties D1. Board’s Order D2. – Kerala Gazette dated 1.11.2002. | 
