PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

                       Dated this the 19^th day of March 2012

                                                                                 Filed on : 13/07/2011

Present :

          Shri. A  Rajesh,                                                     President.

Shri. Paul Gomez,                                                 Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma,                                           Member.

C.C. No. 369/2011

     Between

P.V. Joseph,                                    :        Complainant

Pookunnel house,                             (By Adv. Tom Joseph,  Court

President, Shanthi Educational         Road, Muvattupuzha)

& Ecumenical Trust,

Karakunnam, Puthuppady P.O.,

Kothamangalam. Pin-686 673,

                                                And

 1. Secretary,                                   :         Opposite parties

     KSEB Vydyuthy Bhavan,                     (party-in-person)

     Pattom P.O.,

    Thiruvananthapuam.

2. Assistant Engineer,

    Electrical Section No. II,

    Market P.O., Muvattupuzha.

                                          O R D E R

Paul Gomez, Member.

          The complainant discloses the facts pertaining to the complaint as follows:

          The complainant is the president of a charitable Trust which  conducts a school named Canadian central school.  The opposite parties provide electricity connection to the said school under LT VIA tariff .  On 23-06-2011 2^nd opposite party  issued an electricity bill to the tune of  Rs. 27,269/- on the basis of audit inspection report, according to which the right  tariff applicable to the school was LT VII A tariff and not LT VI A tariff.  In the complaint, it is contended that this conversion is unjustified and the complainant is entitled for refund.

          2. Opposite parties  filed version, contending that Canadian central school is a self financing institution.  Tariff is determined with reference to the purpose for which electric connection is used.   Since the electric connection is availed for commercial purpose, the tariff applicable is LT VII A.  As per schedule of Tariff Terms and conditions for Retail supply by KSEB, the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission included the self financing educational institutions under LT VII A category.

          3.  No oral evidence for the complainant.  Exbts. A1 and A2 were marked.  Opposite party only filed version.  Parties were heard.

          4. The short point for consideration:

          What is the right tariff applicable to the school under dispute?

          5. The complaint is with regard to the right tariff applicable to the school run by the charitable institution in question.  The complainant’s view is that the school being conducted by the charitable institution need be supplied electricity under LT VI A tariff.  But the opposite parties have a different view  and they have converted the tariff applicable it from LT VI A to LTVII A and issued Ext. A1 bill for Rs. 27,269/-   They also contend that school in question is a self financing institution and as per the classification of institutions self financing educational Institutions fall  under the category of  LT VII A for the purpose of levy of electricity charge.  The said classification was quashed by the Hon’ble High court but the 1^st opposite party obtained  stay of the order of the Hon’ble High Court. Therefore the levy of electricity charges under LTVII A for self financing educational institutions  holds good.  But as a matter of fact, there is nothing before us to show that the Canadian central school  puthupadi is a self financing institution as claimed by the opposite parties in their version.  In the absence of cogent evidence to prove that the said school is a self financing institution, we have to go by the contention that it is a school run by a  charitable institution, which presumably lies out side the purview of the order of classification issued by the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission.  Moreover there is not even a whiper of such a ground in the impugned  Ext. A1 bill.

6.       In that view of the matter, the complaint stands allowed as follows:

          Exts. A1 bill is quashed and the electricity charges will be levied by  opposite parties under LT VI A tariff in respect of consumer No. 5640.  

          The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.             

        Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 19^th day of March 2012.

                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                     Paul Gomez, Member.

                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                             A  Rajesh, President.

                                                                                      Sd/-                                                                                        C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

                                                                   Forwarded/By Order,

                                                                   Senior Superintendent.

                                                   Appendix

Complainant’s exhibits :

                             Ext.   A1               :         Copy of provisional invoice

                                      A2              :         Copy of memorandum of 

                                                                  Association.                                     

 Opposite party’s Exhibits :        :