By Smt. Saji Mathew, Member:-
 

The gist of the case is as follows:- Consumer No.6658 has been obtained by the Complainant's father Mr. Joseph for domestic purpose. Few months back two bed rooms were used for Home stay. Recently the 2^nd Opposite Party issued a bill as per 7 A Tariff for 8 months for the building including the residential portion also. In the meanwhile as per the instruction of 2^nd Opposite Party the Complainant have applied for separate electric connection for the residential portion and it was allowed and consumer No.18051 was granted with IA tariff with effect from 11.02.2009. The Opposite Party issued the bill on 21.10.2008 for Rs.8,251/- which is to be paid in three instalments of Rs.3,050/- 2,746/- and Rs.2,693/-. The 1^st instalment was paid and the Opposite Parties are insisting for the payment of other two instalments. Otherwise they would shift the entire supply of electricity to 7 A tariff or disconnect the supply. This is unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties. Therefore, the Complainant prays for order directing the Opposite Party to cancel the bill No. 5640 dated 21.10.2008 for Rs.8,251/- and to return IA Tariff for the Consumer No.18051. The Complainant also prays for an order reducing the connected load from 3,000/- watts to 250 watts.

2. The Opposite Party appeared and filed version. As per their version, the connection No.6658 was provided for domestic purpose. The Anti Power Theft Squad of the Opposite Parties headed by the Assistant Engineer conducted a surprise inspection at the promises of consumer No.6658 on 13.10.2008 and found misuse of tariff. The consumer is running a home stay under the name and style 'Wayanad Jungles Home Stay'. The connected load found was 2801 watts. The Complainant is bound to inform the Opposite Parties and bound to pay the applicable tariff if he is using the supply for purpose other than intended. After the inspection the Officer who conducted the inspection issued a confidential report to the 2^nd opposite Party for further action. Then the 2^nd Opposite party issued a penal bill for misuse of tariff under section 126 of the India Electricity for Rs.8,251/- 21.10.2008. Mr. Joseph had filed a petition for getting instalment facility which was allowed. The 1^st instalment was paid also. Thereafter the Complainant submitted an application for getting separate connection under IA tariff to the portion of above said consumer number used for their domestic use. Accordingly a separate connection as consumer No.18051 was given on 11.2.2009. The Opposite Party will not change the tariff of the same if it is used for the purpose for which it is given.

3. The consumer who is running home stay is bound to install a sub-meter and the reading is to be charged under LT VII A tariff as per the Board Circular No. Plg.Com.3540/98 dated 12.6.2001 and circular dated 06.07.2007. If a sub-meter is not installed, the entire consumption shall be charged under LT VII A tariff. If the Complainant is not directed to pay the disputed bill, the K.S.E.B would be put to loss. Therefore, the Opposite Party prays for an order dismissing the complaint.

4. The Complainant was examined as PW1 and documents were marked as Ext.A1 to A4. The Commission Report was marked as Ext.C1. The Opposite Party was examined as OPW1 and documents were marked as Ext.B1 to Ext.B5.

5. The matters to be considered are:

1. Whether there is any unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for any relief.

    

6. Point No.1:- Ext.B1 is the site mahazar prepared by Anti Power Theft Squad and it is signed by the Complainant also. In the Complaint itself, the Complainant admits that a portion of his residence is used for home stay. As per Ext. B5, sub-meter is to be installed for the portion used for home stay and if sub-meter is not installed, the entire power consumption shall be billed under VII A tariff. In this case, the Opposite Parties have done as per this circular. Besides, the registered owner of the consumer number had given an application for getting instalment facility and that was allowed. 1^st instalment was paid also. Hence no unfair trade practice is found on the part of the Opposite Parties.

7. Point No.2:- As there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The Complainant is not entitled for any relief.

Hence the complaint is dismissed.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 24^th December 2009.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER- I: Sd/-

MEMBER-II: Sd/-

APPENDIX

Witness for the Complainant.

PW1. P. J. James. Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties.

OPW1. Sathyakumar E.P. Assistant Engineer, K.S.E.B.

Exhibits for the the Complainant:

A1. Demand and Disconnection Notice. dt:02.05.2009.

A2. Demand and Disconnection Notice. dt:02.05.2009.

A3. Instalment Letter.

A4. Invoice No.5640. dt:21.10.2008.

C1. Commission Report. dt:13.08.2009.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

B1. Copy of Site Mahazar. dt:13.10.2008.

B2. Letter. dt:12.11.2008.

B3. True Copy of Confidential Report.

B4. Copy of Circular No.Plg.Com. 3540/98. dt:12.6.2001.

B5. Copy of Circular. dt:06.07.2007.