BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 23/07/2012

Date of Order : 31/10/2012

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 447/2012

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The case of the complainant is as follows :-

The complainant is the vicar of St. Joseph Church, North Kiumbalangi. A parish hall is being run by the church. Separate electricity connection has been granted to the parish hall by the opposite parties. The complainant has been promptly remitting the electricity charges. While so on 26-05-2012, the complainant received a notice from the opposite parties. As per the notice, it was informed that the tariff of the connection was charged from VI A to VII A and called upon to pay Rs. 37,935/- towards arrears for the difference in tariff from 03-05-2007 to 02-05-2012. The complainant is not liable to pay the amount. Thus, the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to recall the disputed bill, not to disconnect the electricity connection and to get compensation.

2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows :-

The electricity connection No. 99 was granted to the parish hall of the church on 01-10-2002. The connection was applied in the name of the church and the tariff allotted was under LT VI A. On 10-05-2012, an inspection was conducted and it was found that the hall is being used for renting out for various functions which comes under tariff LT VII A. The parish hall was being used for commercial activities for more than 5 years. The under charged amount was assessed and provisional invoice was issued to the tune of Rs. 37,935/-. The complainant appealed the Executive Engineer complaining about the bill, which was rejected. The Hon'ble Taluk Legal Service Committee as well rejected the complaint of the complainant. The complainant is liable to pay the amount as per the disputed bill.

3. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Exts. A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the complainant. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Heard the complainant who appeared in person and the learned counsel for the opposite parties.

4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows :-

1. Whether the opposite parties are entitled to disconnect the electricity connection?

2. Whether the complainant is liable to pay the amount as per the impugned bill?

3. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainant?

5. Point No. i. :- At the instance of the complainant vide order in I.A. No. 496/2012 dated 23-07-2012, this Forum directed the opposite parties to refrain from disconnecting the electricity connection bearing No. 99. Therefore, there is no point in discussing this point further.

6. Point No. ii. :- According to the opposite parties, on 10-05-2012 an inspection was conducted and it was found that the hall to which the electricity connection granted under tariff VI A is being used for commercial purpose. The opposite parties maintain that the connection should have been taken under tariff VII A and the impugned bill of arrears has been issued for the under charged amount.

7. Ext. A2 is the letter issued by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant which reads as follows :-

“As per the inspection report above consumer is billed under (via). On inspection, it is found that consumer is a parish hall and it comes under ( vii a) tariff. Hence your tariff will be changed to vii a here onwards. And an arrear bill for the period 3/5/2007 to 2/5/2012 showing the difference in current charges when billed in vii a and vi a is attached. Total arrears to the remitted amounts to Rs. 37,935. Details of difference between current charges is attached with this letter. You are liable to pay the amount within the specified date mentioned in the invoice.”

8. It is to be noted that nothing is on record to substantiate the demand of the opposite parties as per Ext. A2. The documents to prove that the opposite parties have conducted an inspection at the premises of the complainant did not see the light of the day in this Forum by all means.

9. It is worthwhile to note that the 2^nd opposite party had failed to note the defect at the time of granting the connection, and thereafter, and further failed for 5 years before detecting the defect. This is not for failure of the complainant, the delay in demanding the arrears if at all. So belatedly does not meet the ends of natural justice for which the complainant is not responsible. The complainant having complied with the direction of the opposite parties is no further liable to pay any arrears. The directions having been complied with calls for no furtherance.

10. Point No. iii. :- The 3^rd question does not arise the complainant has already been paying the electricity charges under VII A tariff as demanded by the opposite parties. No further orders on to this point hence.

11. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows :-

1. The order in I.A. No. 496/2012 dated 23-07-2012 is made absolute.

2. We set aside Ext. A1 the impugned bill.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31^st day of October 2013.

Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Forwarded/By order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil

=========